From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grant Likely Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 08/11] fec: fix uninitialized rx buffer usage Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 13:23:13 -0700 Message-ID: References: <240f12ca87d7666f31263aabc620a9ec197cd8ff.1265173480.git.amit.kucheria@canonical.com> <752ae69adb57d4f73fa011ba380cea1b927b9c8b.1265173480.git.amit.kucheria@canonical.com> <37786d4b1002031033s15d0b24et82c3f0e45112ae65@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: List Linux Kernel , Rob Herring , "David S. Miller" , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux@arm.linux.org.uk, s.hauer@pengutronix.de, valentin.longchamp@epfl.ch, daniel@caiaq.de, Dinh.Nguyen@freescale.com, bryan.wu@canonical.com To: Amit Kucheria Return-path: Received: from mail-iw0-f201.google.com ([209.85.223.201]:46855 "EHLO mail-iw0-f201.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757886Ab0BCUXe (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Feb 2010 15:23:34 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Grant Likely wrote: > On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Amit Kucheria > wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 8:46 AM, Grant Likely wrote: >>> >>> fec related patches 8 & 9 look okay to me. >>> >>> g. >> >> Can I take that as an Acked-by? > > of course. BTW, since these 2 patches are essentially independent, you may find it easier to get all the patches merged if you post the FEC changes in a separate patch series. g.