Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 13 Jan 2015 19:59:18 +0100 | From | Krzysztof Adamski <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] staging: vt6656: Use ether_addr_copy() on vnt_private members. |
| |
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 10:52:00AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 07:42:28PM +0100, Krzysztof Adamski wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 07:42:12PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> >On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 05:15:41PM +0100, Krzysztof Adamski wrote: >> >>This patch fixes checkpatch.pl warning: >> >>WARNING: Prefer ether_addr_copy() over memcpy() if the Ethernet >> >>addresses are __aligned(2) >> >> >> >>current_net_addr and permanent_net_addr members of vnt_private alignment >> >>is changed to at last 16 bits so that ether_addr_copy can be safely used >> >>on them. >> >> >> >>buf->data is of type ieee80211_cts which is already properly aligned. >> >> >> >>Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Adamski <k@japko.eu> >> >>--- >> >>drivers/staging/vt6656/device.h | 4 ++-- >> >>drivers/staging/vt6656/main_usb.c | 3 ++- >> >>drivers/staging/vt6656/rxtx.c | 4 ++-- >> >>3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> > >> >Doesn't apply to my tree :( >> >> Strange, I was trying to apply this on your tree to fix any conflicts but >> apparently you already has this patch in your staging-testing branch. And as >> far as I can tell I only sent it once to you. > >I think you sent it lots of times, if it's there already, don't worry >about it :)
I've send two other patches for this driver twise but this one only once. But that's not imporant. While we're at this, if I ever feel like I should resend the patch because it was lost (I promise I will wait much longer:)), what would be the best way to mark it as resent? Should it be v2 even though it wasn't really changed? Or write it in comment after "---", or maybe some other way? That's the only thing not explained in your "Write and Submit your first Linux kernel Patch" talk.
| |