Bad assumption about ID field definition for Samsung NAND?

[Brian Norris]

On 08/20/2010 02:34 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 14:01 -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
>>> Can I have a signed-off-by for it?
>>
>> I don't know what's "legal" here. I'm appending the patch with a
>> sign-off for me and Tilman (since Tilman authored it). Hopefully that's
>> ok.
>
> You have to cut and paste Tilman's own Signed-off-by: header; the magic
> doesn't work if you type it yourself. :)

I'm glad someone has a sense of humor (or humour, depending on the country)

>> I'm really no expert on how inclusion for different versions goes; I
>> just send 'em to you! Anyway, this patch is *very* important:
>> 	* [PATCH] mtd: nand: Fix regression in BBM detection
>> 	http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2010-August/031594.html
>> It addresses issues I overlooked with a lot of Hynix small-page NAND
>> (and others).
>
> That's in the tree already:
> http://git.infradead.org/mtd-2.6.git/commitdiff/065a1ed8

I realized that right after sending this.

>> Other patches - they are ready, but not as important:
>> 	* Spansion ORNAND
>> 	http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2010-August/031603.html
>> 	* New Samsung MLC OOB sizes
>> 	http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2010-August/031621.html
>
> Those aren't regressions or important bug-fixes, so given the timing I
> think they've missed the merge window and are now candidates for 2.6.37
> rather than 2.6.36?
>
> I'll merge them as soon as I've asked Linus to pull what's in the tree
> right now. Unless you object to my classification?

No objection.

> Just FYI; not to criticise when you're doing such excellent work -- this
> would ideally have a From: and Subject: "header" indicating that Tilman
> is the author, and giving the first line of the commit comment. That
> way, running 'git-am' on it would fairly much work. Not that it's a
> problem for me to do it either, of course.

I see. (Thanks for the compliment, btw, I'm rather new to this)

Brian