Re: [PATCH] blackfin/sram: use 'unsigned long' for irqflags

["Vegard Nossum" <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>]

Hi,

On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 6:58 AM, Vegard Nossum wrote:
>> From 3ef36948a88a968eec1b09859aa251dc6727df4e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>
>> Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:00:23 +0200
>> Subject: [PATCH] blackfin/sram: use 'unsigned long' for irqflags
>>
>> Using just 'unsigned' will make flags an unsigned int. While this is
>> arguably not an error on blackfin where sizeof(int) == sizeof(long),
>> the patch is still justified on the grounds of principle.
>
> indeed, thanks
>
>> The patch was generated using the Coccinelle semantic patch framework.
>
> spam ?

Hm? I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that. Do you think
the credit is undeserved?

>
>> Cc: Julia Lawall <julia@diku.dk>
>> Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>
>
> should be CC Bryan Wu as well ...
> -mike
>

Oh right. I believed that Bryan Wu is the maintainer who would
eventually apply the patch, therefore I put him as a direct recipient
of the e-mail (To-field) and that he would add his Signed-off-by line
which would make the Cc-line redundant. I guess it makes some sense to
also list the maintainer in the patch Ccs since the patch itself may
be separate from the raw e-mail (e.g. in mail archives, which
generally don't display To: or Cc: fields). I didn't realize this
before.

Thanks.


Vegard

-- 
"The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while
the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it
disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation."
	-- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036