Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 9 Jul 2018 14:04:45 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     John Whitmore <arigead@gmail.com>
Cc:     John Whitmore <johnfwhitmore@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org,
        kstewart@linuxfoundation.org, keescook@chromium.org,
        aastha.gupta4104@gmail.com, pombredanne@nexb.com,
        tglx@linutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/12] staging:rtl8192u: Remove blank lines before '}'
 and after '{' characters
Message-ID: <20180709120445.GD5196@kroah.com>
References: <20180707145513.15325-1-johnfwhitmore@gmail.com>
 <20180707145513.15325-3-johnfwhitmore@gmail.com>
 <20180708153811.GA29737@kroah.com>
 <20180709092953.hte2evscogprubr3@xux707-tw>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180709092953.hte2evscogprubr3@xux707-tw>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.0 (2018-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 10:29:54AM +0100, John Whitmore wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 08, 2018 at 05:38:11PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 07, 2018 at 03:55:04PM +0100, John Whitmore wrote:
> > > Coding style change to simply remove the unrequired spaces before a closing
> > > brace or before an opening brace.
> > 
> > That would be good, but that's not what this patch does :(
> > 
> > It removes lines, not spaces, as the subject line said.  You also fix up
> > an indentation as well.
> > 
> > thanks,
> > 
> > greg k-h
> 
> Just for clarification, before I assume something and make a mistake, I'm
> wondering about this patch set. I got auto notification to say that patches 1,
> 2, 4, & 6 had been accepted and merged with staging-next. And I got this email
> to explain why patch number 3 wasn't up to scratch.
> 
> But that leaves 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12. I'm assuming that they didn't apply
> and I that I can resubmit them with a fixed up patch number 3. That seems
> logical to me so I'll work on that basis for the moment. Thought I'd better
> check, before I confuse people, with an erroneous assumption.

Yes, that is correct.

thanks,

greg k-h