Re: [PATCH] staging: vt6656: Use ether_addr_copy() on vnt_private members.

[Krzysztof Adamski <k@japko.eu>]

On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 10:52:00AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 07:42:28PM +0100, Krzysztof Adamski wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 07:42:12PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> >On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 05:15:41PM +0100, Krzysztof Adamski wrote:
>> >>This patch fixes checkpatch.pl warning:
>> >>WARNING: Prefer ether_addr_copy() over memcpy() if the Ethernet
>> >>addresses are __aligned(2)
>> >>
>> >>current_net_addr and permanent_net_addr members of vnt_private alignment
>> >>is changed to at last 16 bits so that ether_addr_copy can be safely used
>> >>on them.
>> >>
>> >>buf->data is of type ieee80211_cts which is already properly aligned.
>> >>
>> >>Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Adamski <k@japko.eu>
>> >>---
>> >>drivers/staging/vt6656/device.h   |    4 ++--
>> >>drivers/staging/vt6656/main_usb.c |    3 ++-
>> >>drivers/staging/vt6656/rxtx.c     |    4 ++--
>> >>3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>> >
>> >Doesn't apply to my tree :(
>>
>> Strange, I was trying to apply this on your tree to fix any conflicts but
>> apparently you already has this patch in your staging-testing branch. And as
>> far as I can tell I only sent it once to you.
>
>I think you sent it lots of times, if it's there already, don't worry
>about it :)

I've send two other patches for this driver twise but this one only 
once. But that's not imporant. While we're at this, if I ever feel like 
I should resend the patch because it was lost (I promise I will wait 
much longer:)), what would be the best way to mark it as resent? Should 
it be v2 even though it wasn't really changed? Or write it in comment 
after "---", or maybe some other way? That's the only thing not 
explained in your "Write and Submit your first Linux kernel Patch" talk.