[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z0CQJOpRPGqM2uE_@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2024 16:07:32 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...asonboard.com>
Cc: Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@...tlin.com>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Cosmin Tanislav <demonsingur@...il.com>,
Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen+renesas@...asonboard.com>,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] i2c: atr: Fix client detach
On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 02:26:18PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> From: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen+renesas@...asonboard.com>
> Signed-off-by: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen+renesas@...asonboard.com>
We (used to?) have a check in Linux Next against missing SoB of the committer,
wouldn't this trap into it?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists