Re: [PATCH v7 16/24] i2c: allow adapter drivers to override the adapter locking

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




> A question on best practices here... I already did a v8 (but only as
> a branch) so I think this will be v9, bit that's a minor detail. The
> real question is what I should do about patches 1-15 that are already
> in next? Send them too? If not, should I send 16-24 with the same old
> patch numbers or should they be numbered 1-9 now? And should such a
> shortened series be rebased on 1-15 in next?
> 
> Or does it not really matter?

Easiest for me is:

Send as v9, only the patches not yet applied, numbered from 1-9, based
on my for-next.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]
  Powered by Linux