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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200312094008.1833929-1-gabravier@gmail.com> <CAMpxmJUUth5w8tvZp8mFV-FDz0YivmRWAqsOQSTdze1xagMX8A@mail.gmail.com>
 <38cbabe3-151b-1fd6-9d36-f27e9c9aa414@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <38cbabe3-151b-1fd6-9d36-f27e9c9aa414@gmail.com>
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:29:57 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMpxmJVSPA9CQBGULyk69KaP42oMdKGg883z0FeFC_mSA5w2xA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio-hammer: Avoid potential overflow in main
To:     Gabriel Ravier <gabravier@gmail.com>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        linux-gpio <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

czw., 12 mar 2020 o 15:21 Gabriel Ravier <gabravier@gmail.com> napisa=C5=82=
(a):
>
> Ah, that was accidental. I was applying scripts/Lindent to my code and
> ended up also having it applied to part of the old code. Didn't think it
> would hurt, but I guess it makes sense to be this stringent on
> separating logical changes. Will send a (complete) corrected patch
> in-reply-to this message.
>

Please don't send patches in response to other threads. Always start a
new thread and increment the version in [PATCH vX] tag.

Bart