From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1754624AbZCEMwS@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754624AbZCEMwS (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 5 Mar 2009 07:52:18 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751920AbZCEMwE
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Thu, 5 Mar 2009 07:52:04 -0500
Received: from mail.polezero.com ([216.68.55.34]:48966 "EHLO
	firewall.polezero.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751593AbZCEMwD (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 5 Mar 2009 07:52:03 -0500
Subject: Re: New HID device support
From: Jason Noble <nobleja@polezero.com>
To: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LNX.2.00.0903042355320.4971@jikos.suse.cz>
References: <1236096277.26321.29.camel@paradox.pz.local>
	 <alpine.LNX.2.00.0903031720380.5295@jikos.suse.cz>
	 <1236107096.7793.1.camel@paradox.pz.local>
	 <alpine.LNX.2.00.0903041144310.4971@jikos.suse.cz>
	 <1236172544.21288.3.camel@paradox.pz.local>
	 <alpine.LNX.2.00.0903041419250.4971@jikos.suse.cz>
	 <1236173654.21288.8.camel@paradox.pz.local>
	 <alpine.LNX.2.00.0903041436210.4971@jikos.suse.cz>
	 <1236178031.9121.6.camel@paradox.pz.local>
	 <alpine.LNX.2.00.0903041612210.4971@jikos.suse.cz>
	 <1236179770.9121.12.camel@paradox.pz.local>
	 <alpine.LNX.2.00.0903042355320.4971@jikos.suse.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 07:51:52 -0500
Message-Id: <1236257512.25955.0.camel@paradox.pz.local>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Sounds good, thanks again!

On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 23:56 +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Mar 2009, Jason Noble wrote:
> 
> > No problem, glad to help out.
> > Very glad to get my buttons working. ;-)
> > 
> > Do you think this will make its way into 2.6.29?
> 
> If there is any urgent bugfix that needs to go to 2.6.29, I will push it 
> altogether. Otherwise it will probably go through 2.6.30 queue.
>