From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: wfp5p@viridian.itc.virginia.edu (Bill Pemberton) Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tty tree Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 11:15:11 -0400 Message-ID: <20130320151511.170EC8017A@viridian.itc.virginia.edu> References: <5149D1FD.90400@suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5149D1FD.90400@suse.cz> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jiri Slaby Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Greg KH , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org Jiri Slaby writes: > > On 03/20/2013 03:42 PM, Bill Pemberton wrote: > > Ok, for the unopened ports there *should* never be any actual data to > > push so the push is really doing nothing anyhow in these cases. It's > > coming from the device sending an initial change port command. > > > > Anyhow, so my patch adding more is_open logic can be dropped and then > > yours will apply fine. What's the best way for me to handle this? > > Send a revert for my patch so yours will apply or send an updated > > version of your patch that removes my additions? > > Asking Greg to revert should suffice. I commented on that patch, but in > a different thread, so Greg missed the comment the patch is not needed > IIRC. What was the title of the patch, I cannot find it immediately :/? > "USB: quatech2: only write to the tty if the port is open." (commit 27b351c in v3.9-rc3). -- Bill