From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <stable-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-la0-f50.google.com ([209.85.215.50]:34038 "EHLO
	mail-la0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754521AbbESKBF (ORCPT
	<rfc822;stable@vger.kernel.org>); Tue, 19 May 2015 06:01:05 -0400
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 12:01:03 +0200
From: Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
	Support Opensource <support.opensource@diasemi.com>,
	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@linux.intel.com>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>,
	Milo Kim <milo.kim@ti.com>,
	patches@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com,
	Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@freescale.com>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
	stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mfd: da9052: fix broken regulator probe
Message-ID: <20150519100103.GM28127@localhost>
References: <20150513160836.GZ2761@sirena.org.uk>
 <20150513165419.GF19543@x1>
 <20150513172936.GE2761@sirena.org.uk>
 <20150514071943.GA20358@x1>
 <20150515144739.GC13976@localhost>
 <20150518091049.GN22418@x1>
 <20150518095159.GB28127@localhost>
 <20150518162405.GA2761@sirena.org.uk>
 <20150518164630.GL28127@localhost>
 <20150518184654.GC2761@sirena.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150518184654.GC2761@sirena.org.uk>
Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <stable.vger.kernel.org>

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 07:46:54PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 06:46:30PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> 
> > Yes, resending is sometimes needed, but what set me off here was your
> > comment that resending might not be enough even after you've now become
> > aware of a several-month old regression in your subsystem.
> 
> If you're referring to my original reply I'm afraid to disappoint you
> but I hadn't read far enough in the backtrace to see anything except
> that people wanted me to look at a patch I didn't have a copy of (I
> didn't even know if I'd been CCed on the original posting).  I was
> simply trying to say that it might be worth looking at other aspects of
> how the patch was sent - what you got there was basically a form letter
> type response to contentless pings.

I might have read too much into that response, but the pings were hardly
contentless (they all included the commit message and some the full patch).

Anyway, glad to see the issue resolved now. Thanks for the review.

Johan