Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:51:41 +0100 | From | "Kay Sievers" <> | Subject | Re: s390: struct device - replace bus_id with dev_name(), dev_set_name() |
| |
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 16:46, Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 03:58:21PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:38, Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> wrote: >> > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:32:00AM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: >> >> On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 01:57:07 +0100, >> >> Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> > From: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org> >> >> > Subject: s390: struct device - replace bus_id with dev_name(), dev_set_name() >> >> > >> >> > Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com> >> >> > Cc: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> >> >> > Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de> >> >> > Signed-Off-By: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org> >> >> >> >> Other than the fact that this patch is a bit mis-named (it just gets >> >> rid of BUS_ID_SIZE), this looks fine to me. >> >> Yeah, sorry, it's one of the 49 patches, where the subjects isn't >> right, because you did the conversion already. :) >> >> > Who is supposed to send this upstream and when? >> >> Would be fine if it goes through the s390 tree, and gets merged there >> soon so it shows up in -next. > > Just to get this right: it doesn't depend on any other patches and is > fine as a standalone patch, right? > Sorry, this isn't obvious for me ;)
The stuff it depends on, we already put into .27. It should not depend on anything not in a released version, yes.
Kay
| |