From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1758852AbYD2HCW@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1758852AbYD2HCW (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 29 Apr 2008 03:02:22 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754487AbYD2HCN
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Tue, 29 Apr 2008 03:02:13 -0400
Received: from mail.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:42647 "EHLO mx1.suse.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1754937AbYD2HCM (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 29 Apr 2008 03:02:12 -0400
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 23:51:33 -0700
From: Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>
To: SL Baur <steve@xemacs.org>
Cc: 12o3l@tiscali.nl, greg@kroah.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: patch
	usb-mos7840-test-and-propagate-set_uart_reg-return-value.patch
	added to gregkh-2.6 tree
Message-ID: <20080429065133.GA8708@suse.de>
References: <4806CF18.2050403@tiscali.nl> <12094267913945@kroah.org> <ed10ee420804282331x70acd75bv924767dc4cc1fdde@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ed10ee420804282331x70acd75bv924767dc4cc1fdde@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 11:31:07PM -0700, SL Baur wrote:
> On 4/28/08, gregkh@suse.de <gregkh@suse.de> wrote:
> >
> >  This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
> >
> >      Subject: USB: mos7840: test and propagate set_uart_reg return value
> >
> >  to my gregkh-2.6 tree.  Its filename is
> >
> >      usb-mos7840-test-and-propagate-set_uart_reg-return-value.patch
> 
> NAK.  Reviewer's question was never answered.

Does that mean that the original patch is invalid?  Or just that your
question was never answered?

thanks,

greg k-h