On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 3:25 PM Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 03:09:59PM -0700, Justin Stitt wrote: > > Should I undo this? I want my patch against next since it's targeting > > some stuff in-flight over there. BUT, I also want ethtool_puts() to be > > directly below ethtool_sprintf() in the source code. What to do? > > (removing everyone except the lists from CC, I don't want to go to email > arest because of spamming too many recipients) > > What is the stuff in-flight in next that this is targeting? > > And why would anything prevent you from putting ethtool_puts() directly > below ethtool_sprintf()? The in-flight stuff consists of patches I sent changing some strncpy() usage to ethtool_sprintf(&data, "%s", something[i].name); We can see them here [1]. I went for this approach initially but then discussion came up about introducing ethtool_puts() which now made my patches (some accepted into next already) semi-outdated and in need of another swap from sprintf->puts() -- hence this series. As far as the rebase, I simply took my commits and placed them on top of next/master and got merge conflicts when ethtool_puts() was placed below ethtool_sprintf(). All I have to do is move the hunks around but since I formatted the file it's appearing in the diff. v3 will be a clean diff. [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/?q=dfb:ethtool_sprintf%20AND%20f:justinstitt Thanks Justin
