[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201309181756.12782@pali>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 17:56:12 +0200
From: Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>
To: Javier Martinez Canillas <martinez.javier@...il.com>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Anton Vorontsov <anton@...msg.org>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
freemangordon@....bg, Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@....fi>,
"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] usb: musb: Call atomic_notifier_call_chain when status is changed
On Wednesday 18 September 2013 15:57:13 Javier Martinez Canillas
wrote:
> to split the patch in two since the patch was solving
> two separate issues
My patch does not solving *two* issues. It is *one* regression
and both parts of patch are needed for fixing it. Read commit
message again. It does not make sense to split patch fixing kernel
regression into more one line patches - or please clarify why.
--
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@...il.com
Download attachment "signature.asc " of type "application/pgp-signature" (199 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists