On 9/3/19 6:16 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote: > yes I've gone through most of it. tnx > Some patches do not work alone out of that sequence. Does it make sense > to squash them into one? Yes, the patches build on top of each other, but the series is bisectable. The criterium is to have one change per patch and the tree can be compiled before and after the patch. Smaller changes and thus patches are usually easier to review. It would be nice to have the "renaming things" patches separate, for the above reasons. But the introduction of the mid-layer should stay separate: introduce it and allocate the mid-layer memory, switch the framework over to make use of it and finally remove all left overs. > squash patches 1-4 into one ? See above. > 5 ok Tnx, added your Acked-by. > squash patches 6-7 into one ? > squash patches 8-9 into one ? See above > 10 ok Tnx, added your Acked-by. > 11 ok - but my mail address is wrong :/ Doh - Fixed. > 12 already ok > squash patches 13-15 into one ? No, see above. > 16-17 ok Tnx, added your Acked-by. > 18 Shouldn't it be CAN_REQUIRED_SIZE() ?? Good point. Fixed. > 19-21 ok Tnx, added your Acked-by. > ok -> Acked-by: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > I'll take a closer look into 21 - but no need to slow down the upstream > process for that. Tnx, Marc -- Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde | Industrial Linux Solutions | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 | Vertretung West/Dortmund | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | http://www.pengutronix.de |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
