linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] FBTFT: fb_sh: Changed udelay() to usleep_range() based on the Document, Documentation/timers/timers-howto.rst Excerpt from the document: -SLEEPING FOR ~USECS OR SMALL MSECS ( 10us

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20191103123538.GA604630@kroah.com>
Date:   Sun, 3 Nov 2019 13:35:38 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     rama <ramakumar.kanasundara@...il.com>
Cc:     devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        nishadkamdar@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] FBTFT: fb_sh: Changed udelay() to usleep_range() based
 on the Document, Documentation/timers/timers-howto.rst Excerpt from the
 document: -SLEEPING FOR ~USECS OR SMALL MSECS ( 10us - 20ms): * Use
 usleep_range

On Sat, Nov 02, 2019 at 07:59:06PM -0500, rama wrote:
> ---
>  drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_agm1264k-fl.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Hi,

This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.  You have sent him
a patch that has triggered this response.  He used to manually respond
to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept
writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was
created.  Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem
in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux
kernel tree.

You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s)
as indicated below:

- Your patch does not have a Signed-off-by: line.  Please read the
  kernel file, Documentation/SubmittingPatches and resend it after
  adding that line.  Note, the line needs to be in the body of the
  email, before the patch, not at the bottom of the patch or in the
  email signature.

- You did not specify a description of why the patch is needed, or
  possibly, any description at all, in the email body.  Please read the
  section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file,
  Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what is needed in order to
  properly describe the change.

- You did not write a descriptive Subject: for the patch, allowing Greg,
  and everyone else, to know what this patch is all about.  Please read
  the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file,
  Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what a proper Subject: line should
  look like.

- It looks like you did not use your "real" name for the patch on either
  the Signed-off-by: line, or the From: line (both of which have to
  match).  Please read the kernel file, Documentation/SubmittingPatches
  for how to do this correctly.

If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about
how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and
Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
from other developers.

thanks,

greg k-h's patch email bot