On 9/4/19 12:26 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > 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. The current status is: > squash patches 1-4 into one ? Not squashed, Acked-by added. > 5 ok Acked-by added. > squash patches 6-7 into one ? Not squashed, Acked-by added. > squash patches 8-9 into one ? Not squashed, Acked-by added. > 10 ok Acked-by added. > 11 ok - but my mail address is wrong :/ Acked-by added, fixed email address. > 12 already ok Acked-by added. > squash patches 13-15 into one ? 13 has S-o-b 14/15 not squashed, Acked-by added. > 16-17 ok > 18 Shouldn't it be CAN_REQUIRED_SIZE() ?? Fixed, No Acked-by for now. > 19-21 ok Acked-by added. 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
