On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 12:27:07PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 09:05:33PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > Well, I assume that issues regarding checkpatch do not have the highest
> > priority (especially while the merge-window is open), which is understandable.
> 
> Hm, the "merge-window" for new stuff like these patches is pretty much
> already closed, as you didn't send them _before_ the merge window opened
> up.  You need to get them to us sooner, so we can test stuff out in the
> -next tree for a while before we can merge them.

Seems you got me wrong here :)

As I stated in the introduction ("PATCH [0/2]"), this patch series is _not_
meant for the current merge-window. I just happened to be done with it now.

With the above sentence I just wanted to give a hint, why there was not a reply
to my checkpatch-mail (as Hans seemed to be concerned about that there was
none).

Regards,

   Wolfram

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Wolfram Sang                |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |