From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932288AbVHXVnp (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:43:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932291AbVHXVnp (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:43:45 -0400 Received: from smtp-103-wednesday.noc.nerim.net ([62.4.17.103]:62982 "EHLO mallaury.nerim.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932288AbVHXVno (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:43:44 -0400 Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 23:43:31 +0200 From: Jean Delvare To: Marcelo Tosatti Cc: LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.4] (5/5) I2C updates for 2.4.32-pre3 Message-Id: <20050824234331.5209042d.khali@linux-fr.org> In-Reply-To: <20050818162509.GB6262@dmt.cnet> References: <20050814151320.76e906d5.khali@linux-fr.org> <20050814171716.099b8f55.khali@linux-fr.org> <20050818162509.GB6262@dmt.cnet> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.5 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Marcelo, > All of these seem to be cleanups/cosmetic enhancements rather than > real bugfixes, except the ML address update. Patches 1/5, 3/5 and 4/5 are typo fixes in documentation and comments. 5/5 however qualifies as (minor) bug fix IMHO, as missing newlines in log messages will cause the next message's log level not to be interpreted as such. > As you know, we've been trying to reduce the scope of patch acceptance > in v2.4.x to strictly necessary changes. > > Do any of these fall into this criteria? I sent you these patches because I thought they were worth applying, obviously, so don't ask me. Apply them or discard them as you feel like, it's really up to you, not me. From that, I'll know what kind of patches are worth sending next time. Thanks, -- Jean Delvare