From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tty tree Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:16:28 -0700 Message-ID: <20130321001628.GC27981@kroah.com> References: <5149D1FD.90400@suse.cz> <20130320151511.170EC8017A@viridian.itc.virginia.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:55098 "EHLO out1-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752030Ab3CUAQa (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Mar 2013 20:16:30 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130320151511.170EC8017A@viridian.itc.virginia.edu> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Bill Pemberton Cc: Jiri Slaby , Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:15:11AM -0400, Bill Pemberton wrote: > 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). I've now reverted this, so it should be ok. greg k-h