On 9/4/19 12:25 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote: > Hi Marc, > > On 04/09/2019 09.15, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: >> On 9/3/19 6:16 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote: > >>> 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. > > Ah, I've just seen that the sequence first renamed the structs and then > the variable names step-by-step. > > That is indeed the best approach ... forget my remarks about squashing > these patches. > > You can add my Acked-by for all of these renaming patches too. Thanks. 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
