From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: perry.hooker@gmail.com (Perry Hooker)
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 10:46:34 -0600
Subject: Patch Question
In-Reply-To: <20170419161334.GA32742@kroah.com>
References: <CAO62RXd4brUeFKhJP_fU7r_MiPzQ1BLx+3G4w5G2Qyr8rciwSA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20170417235844.GA745@eros>
	<CAO62RXcDbmKmxm+L72fcyKG6RRR3HvxW0W2nezQ4W=bazH-_QA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20170419001132.GA15282@eros>
	<CAO62RXdj24OPnNzXraDsrp+zw9PnwaBY5wJ+2CYmBix+WzZK_w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20170419161334.GA32742@kroah.com>
Message-ID: <CAO62RXde-fDwx-=FdzrZQTA0PgEjJ91O1AamSFQWL9vFE5aODw@mail.gmail.com>
To: kernelnewbies@lists.kernelnewbies.org
List-Id: kernelnewbies.lists.kernelnewbies.org

Thank you for your reply.

> It's _your_ responsibility to convince me that your patch is correct and
> should be applied.  If no one respondes after a week or so, resend it,
> with your additional information in the changelog so that the same
> conversation doesn't happen again.

Understood. I'm still open to the possibility that I've made a mistake
- I don't want to re-submit the patch if my analysis is incorrect.

Maybe I didn't make it clear (my apologies if so) - what I'm really
looking for here is help confirming or refuting my work. If
re-submitting the patch is the best way to do this, then I can
certainly go that route.

Regards,
Perry