08.02.2014, 02:25, "David Fries" :
>> Can you also check that protocol documentation is correct?
>
> Documentation/connector/connector.txt ? I found it a little unclear,
> I'll see what I can do.
No, I meant Documentation/w1
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 01:23:43AM +0400, z...@ioremap.net wrote:
> Hi
>
> 07.02.2014, 10:00, "David Fries" :
>
> > Here's a patch to implement that. Is this what you have in mind?
> >
> > From 4ed65d81b0121a8c191a9833d041484e9097198b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: David Fries
> > Date:
Hi
07.02.2014, 10:00, "David Fries" :
> Here's a patch to implement that. Is this what you have in mind?
>
> From 4ed65d81b0121a8c191a9833d041484e9097198b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: David Fries
> Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 23:45:05 -0600
> Subject: [PATCH] w1: correct cn_msg ack, no change or
Hi
07.02.2014, 10:00, David Fries da...@fries.net:
Here's a patch to implement that. Is this what you have in mind?
From 4ed65d81b0121a8c191a9833d041484e9097198b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: David Fries da...@fries.net
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 23:45:05 -0600
Subject: [PATCH] w1: correct
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 01:23:43AM +0400, z...@ioremap.net wrote:
Hi
07.02.2014, 10:00, David Fries da...@fries.net:
Here's a patch to implement that. Is this what you have in mind?
From 4ed65d81b0121a8c191a9833d041484e9097198b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: David Fries
08.02.2014, 02:25, David Fries da...@fries.net:
Can you also check that protocol documentation is correct?
Documentation/connector/connector.txt ? I found it a little unclear,
I'll see what I can do.
No, I meant Documentation/w1
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 03:48:45AM +0400, z...@ioremap.net wrote:
> Hi
>
> 04.02.2014, 09:51, "David Fries" :
> > Help me understand what the protocol is supposed to be. Assuming
> > there aren't any errors, is there supposed to be a
> > w1_netlink_send_error generated reply per netlink packet
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 03:48:45AM +0400, z...@ioremap.net wrote:
Hi
04.02.2014, 09:51, David Fries da...@fries.net:
Help me understand what the protocol is supposed to be. Assuming
there aren't any errors, is there supposed to be a
w1_netlink_send_error generated reply per netlink
Hi
04.02.2014, 09:51, "David Fries" :
> Help me understand what the protocol is supposed to be. Assuming
> there aren't any errors, is there supposed to be a
> w1_netlink_send_error generated reply per netlink packet (cn_msg), per
> w1_netlink_msg, or per w1_netlink_cmd?
reply should be sent
Hi
04.02.2014, 09:51, David Fries da...@fries.net:
Help me understand what the protocol is supposed to be. Assuming
there aren't any errors, is there supposed to be a
w1_netlink_send_error generated reply per netlink packet (cn_msg), per
w1_netlink_msg, or per w1_netlink_cmd?
reply should
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 03:59:38AM +0400, z...@ioremap.net wrote:
> Hi
>
> 03.02.2014, 05:15, "David Fries" :
>
> > I could submit these patches as in, which would require the previous
> > set, or I could merge the documentation into the previous set and
> > resubmit them all since they
Hi
03.02.2014, 05:15, "David Fries" :
> I could submit these patches as in, which would require the previous
> set, or I could merge the documentation into the previous set and
> resubmit them all since they haven't made it into the kernel tree yet.
> Opinions?
>
> Here's a small refcnt
Hi
03.02.2014, 05:15, David Fries da...@fries.net:
I could submit these patches as in, which would require the previous
set, or I could merge the documentation into the previous set and
resubmit them all since they haven't made it into the kernel tree yet.
Opinions?
Here's a small
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 03:59:38AM +0400, z...@ioremap.net wrote:
Hi
03.02.2014, 05:15, David Fries da...@fries.net:
I could submit these patches as in, which would require the previous
set, or I could merge the documentation into the previous set and
resubmit them all since they
I could submit these patches as in, which would require the previous
set, or I could merge the documentation into the previous set and
resubmit them all since they haven't made it into the kernel tree yet.
Opinions?
Here's a small refcnt fix, skipping sending non-error messages, and
documentation
I could submit these patches as in, which would require the previous
set, or I could merge the documentation into the previous set and
resubmit them all since they haven't made it into the kernel tree yet.
Opinions?
Here's a small refcnt fix, skipping sending non-error messages, and
documentation
16 matches
Mail list logo
