OK. To answer your earlier question, anyway: yes, you would need to resubmit the whole series, even individual patches which didn't change. For those, you should mark them "resend" instead of bumping the version number.
I'm not entirely sure it was right of me to sign off on the one which was fine, since it wouldn't work without the earlier patch. I wanted to indicate that it was fine. That uncertainty is why I didn't do it for the other one. *shrug*
-Ken
On Jul 11, 2016, at 3:35 AM, DavidL david.dljunk@gmail.com wrote:
Actually it looks like I am going to make a slight change to device_location_comparator to get rid of another set of compilation warnings - I took a look at button_usage_comparator and modeled the new version after that which eliminated the warning messages.
Cheers, David
On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 10:25 PM, DavidL <david.dljunk@gmail.com mailto:david.dljunk@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Ken,
Thanks, I'll make the changes. For the dinput & winmm patch 2/3 & 2/2, should I resubmit them as part of my version 4 of the overall patches even if they have been signed-off on? (although I think only the dinput one was signed off on) I'm not anticipating making any changes to signed-off sorting code patch based on the comments.
Cheers, David
On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Ken Thomases <ken@codeweavers.com mailto:ken@codeweavers.com> wrote: On Jun 30, 2016, at 7:02 PM, David Lawrie <david.dljunk@gmail.com mailto:david.dljunk@gmail.com> wrote:
Tested on OS X 10.10.5.
Signed-off-by: David Lawrie <david.dljunk@gmail.com mailto:david.dljunk@gmail.com>
dlls/winejoystick.drv/joystick_osx.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
This has similar issues as the dinput version, the main one being the pointless "result" variable in get_device_property_long().
-Ken