From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/12] spi: Do spi_take_timestamp_pre for as many times as necessary Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2020 13:16:34 +0000 Message-ID: <20200305131634.GD4046@sirena.org.uk> References: <20200304220044.11193-1-olteanv@gmail.com> <20200304220044.11193-8-olteanv@gmail.com> <20200305121202.GB4046@sirena.org.uk> <20200305130448.GC4046@sirena.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="T7mxYSe680VjQnyC" Cc: linux-spi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, lkml , Esben Haabendal , angelo-BIYBQhTR83Y@public.gmane.org, andrew.smirnov-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, "Gustavo A. R. Silva" , Wei Chen , Mohamed Hosny To: Vladimir Oltean Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-spi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: --T7mxYSe680VjQnyC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 03:13:53PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 at 15:04, Mark Brown wrote: > > That's mostly all true but it's still better to pull fixes like this (or > > the patch limiting the size) forwards and not have to think if it's safe > > to not apply them as a fix, it's less effort all round. > So do you want me to do something about it now? No, it's fine for now but please bear this in mind in future. --T7mxYSe680VjQnyC Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAl5g+7EACgkQJNaLcl1U h9CuIgf8CPmhlqhfcee9Ci1AvSvSQ6xlsVV5/vgUDE46caYf+o0lvc3iJNPqnLvK a0ZXaSs9mpkONPWpmXfsgk+BVbAb+4ykuipEHVp0G9py+KOxkzcXQRXiyjCGlqn/ PTGIhIq/gjJaN1CwSELFoL2MTNWWh64H+yCISBRIKMU6ttcKKpQ830LTWbdpTohP Fgai52ynNFsOKA/JwfLrUcgjSNWXXSm+Bec2UcBWPWjrgYGkdQafoyjGCjfzSFL4 Ezrm3ye7do1VRFf/UJ6v02miFG4o+lEZv+FyVvCI/SWD2nu8m3yAVBdnWcZM5LVV +E0vjsXEtwJu/XSCCQ2g2ao20+oveA== =Ct73 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --T7mxYSe680VjQnyC--