> -----Original Message----- > From: Antoine Tenart <antoine.tenart@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Friday, July 5, 2019 4:40 PM > To: Pascal Van Leeuwen <pvanleeuwen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Antoine Tenart <antoine.tenart@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Pascal van Leeuwen <pascalvanl@xxxxxxxxx>; linux-crypto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH] crypto: inside-secure - remove unused struct entry > > On Fri, Jul 05, 2019 at 02:32:46PM +0000, Pascal Van Leeuwen wrote: > > > From: Antoine Tenart <antoine.tenart@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > You should wait for either those patches to be merged (or directly > > > integrate this change in a newer version of those patches), or send this > > > patch in the same series. Otherwise it's problematic as you do not know > > > which patches will be applied first. > > > > This patch indeed depends on earlier patches. I was just assuming > > people to be smart enough to apply the patches in the correct order :-) > > It's actually very difficult for a maintainer to remember this, > especially when he has to deal with plenty of patches from many > contributors. And some series can take time to be merged while others > can be accepted easily, so it's hard to keep track of dependencies :) > That's an interesting point though, as dependencies between more complex/larger patches are rather unavoidable ... So how should you handle that? Do you need to wait for the previous patches to be accepted before submitting the next ones? Thats seems rather inefficient as I could already be getting some (low-hanging fruit) feedback on the next patchset that I can already work on while waiting for the previous patchset(s) to go through the process. I'm a hardware guy. We pipeline stuff by default :-) Regards, Pascal van Leeuwen Silicon IP Architect, Multi-Protocol Engines @ Verimatrix www.insidesecure.com
