RE: [PATCH 0/9] Towards configfs in mass storage

Hello Felipe, On Tuesday, April 02, 2013 4:00 PM Felipe Balbi wrote: Hi Andrejz, On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:45:31PM +0100, Andrzej Pietrasiewicz wrote: The prerequisite for providing the configfs interface for mass storage and all its users is converting them to the new function

Re: [PATCH 0/9] Towards configfs in mass storage

Hi, On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 10:54:24AM +0200, Andrzej Pietrasiewicz wrote: The prerequisite for providing the configfs interface for mass storage and all its users is converting them to the new function interface from Sebastian. This patch series serves the purpose stated above.

RE: [PATCH 0/9] Towards configfs in mass storage

Hi, On Wednesday, April 03, 2013 12:01 PM Felipe Balbi wrote: I think it is more acceptable to provide a small but more-or-less complete solution and I intend to do further works in a manner demonstrated in the above mentioned thread. alright, but do we still have the old

Re: [PATCH 0/9] Towards configfs in mass storage

Hi, On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 12:57:49PM +0200, Andrzej Pietrasiewicz wrote: I think it is more acceptable to provide a small but more-or-less complete solution and I intend to do further works in a manner demonstrated in the above mentioned thread. alright, but do we still have the

Re: [PATCH 0/9] Towards configfs in mass storage

On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 02:12:27PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: Hi, On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 12:57:49PM +0200, Andrzej Pietrasiewicz wrote: I think it is more acceptable to provide a small but more-or-less complete solution and I intend to do further works in a manner demonstrated in

Re: [PATCH 0/9] Towards configfs in mass storage

Hi, On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 02:27:49PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: I think it is more acceptable to provide a small but more-or-less complete solution and I intend to do further works in a manner demonstrated in the above mentioned thread. alright, but do we still have

Re: [PATCH 0/9] Towards configfs in mass storage

Hi, On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 02:39:19PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: I think it is more acceptable to provide a small but more-or-less complete solution and I intend to do further works in a manner demonstrated in the above mentioned thread. alright, but do we still

RE: [PATCH 0/9] Towards configfs in mass storage

Hi, On Wednesday, April 03, 2013 1:39 PM Felipe Balbi wrote: snip Sebastian's email address was also broken, I fixed it all up now. Will run a few tests. There is one patch which you didn't add your SoB, should I add it ? commit 0d24ccd4e2bc70662537742d82e0bd1ab012123c Author:

Re: [PATCH 0/9] Towards configfs in mass storage

Hi, On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 01:48:03PM +0200, Andrzej Pietrasiewicz wrote: Hi, On Wednesday, April 03, 2013 1:39 PM Felipe Balbi wrote: snip Sebastian's email address was also broken, I fixed it all up now. Will run a few tests. There is one patch which you didn't add your

RE: [PATCH 0/9] Towards configfs in mass storage

Hi, On Wednesday, April 03, 2013 1:50 PM Felipe Balbi wrote: snip Sebastian's email address was also broken, I fixed it all up now. Will run a few tests. There is one patch which you didn't add your SoB, should I add it ? commit 0d24ccd4e2bc70662537742d82e0bd1ab012123c

Re: [PATCH 0/9] Towards configfs in mass storage

Hi Andrejz, On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:45:31PM +0100, Andrzej Pietrasiewicz wrote: The prerequisite for providing the configfs interface for mass storage and all its users is converting them to the new function interface from Sebastian. This patch series serves the purpose stated above.