On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Veaceslav Falico wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 09:17:07AM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 8:56 AM, David Miller wrote:
>>>
>>> Tom, even if the patches are sort of independent, they logically
>>> belong together.
>>>
>>> So please
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 09:17:07AM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 8:56 AM, David Miller wrote:
Tom, even if the patches are sort of independent, they logically
belong together.
So please number them, and provide an appropriate "[PATCH 0/N] ..."
cover letter.
Please
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 8:56 AM, David Miller wrote:
> Tom, even if the patches are sort of independent, they logically
> belong together.
>
> So please number them, and provide an appropriate "[PATCH 0/N] ..."
> cover letter.
>
> Please resubmit these patches with that done properly, thank you.
Tom, even if the patches are sort of independent, they logically
belong together.
So please number them, and provide an appropriate "[PATCH 0/N] ..."
cover letter.
Please resubmit these patches with that done properly, thank you.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
Tom, even if the patches are sort of independent, they logically
belong together.
So please number them, and provide an appropriate [PATCH 0/N] ...
cover letter.
Please resubmit these patches with that done properly, thank you.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 8:56 AM, David Miller da...@davemloft.net wrote:
Tom, even if the patches are sort of independent, they logically
belong together.
So please number them, and provide an appropriate [PATCH 0/N] ...
cover letter.
Please resubmit these patches with that done properly,
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 09:17:07AM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 8:56 AM, David Miller da...@davemloft.net wrote:
Tom, even if the patches are sort of independent, they logically
belong together.
So please number them, and provide an appropriate [PATCH 0/N] ...
cover
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Veaceslav Falico vfal...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 09:17:07AM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 8:56 AM, David Miller da...@davemloft.net wrote:
Tom, even if the patches are sort of independent, they logically
belong
This covers the trivial case:
alloc_netdev(_, "bar", NET_NAME_PREDICTABLE, _);
Signed-off-by: Tom Gundersen
---
This patch goes on top of net-next.
drivers/media/dvb-core/dvb_net.c | 2 +-
drivers/misc/sgi-xp/xpnet.c | 2 +-
drivers/net/caif/caif_virtio.c | 2 +-
drivers/net/eql.c
This covers the trivial case:
alloc_netdev(_, bar, NET_NAME_PREDICTABLE, _);
Signed-off-by: Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no
---
This patch goes on top of net-next.
drivers/media/dvb-core/dvb_net.c | 2 +-
drivers/misc/sgi-xp/xpnet.c | 2 +-
drivers/net/caif/caif_virtio.c | 2 +-
10 matches
Mail list logo