Re: [PATCH RESEND 3/3] drivers/scsi/ufs: fix incorrect return value about SUCCESS and FAILED

["S, Venkatraman" <svenkatr@xxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 8:12 PM, James Bottomley
<James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 19:39 +0530, Venkatraman S wrote:
>> From: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Currently the UFS host driver has returned incorrect values for SUCCESS
>> and FAILED.  Fix it to return the correct value to the upper layer.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Acked-by: Santosh Y <santoshsy@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> The signoff chain here doesn't make sense.  It needs to be signed off by
> you, not by Andrew since you're the one sending the patches.  Signoffs
> follow the way the patch is transmitted, so it needs author (it has)
> followed by maintainer ack (it has) followed by signoff of the person
> sending the patch to the list (that's you) which is missing.
>
Apologies - I took these patches from linux-next directly.
I'll send again with my Sign-Off.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html