On Di, 2019-04-02 at 11:01 +0200, Greg KH wrote: > External E-Mail > > > On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 08:17:02AM +0000, Christian.Gromm@microchip.c > om wrote: > > > > On Di, 2019-04-02 at 09:25 +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > > External E-Mail > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 02:05:38PM +0200, Christian Gromm wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > This patch introduces attribute names that are more self > > > > explaining. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Christian Gromm <christian.gromm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > v2: > > > > - follow-up adaptions due to changes introduced w/ > > > > [PATCH v2 > > > > 01/14] > > > > v3: > > > > > > > > drivers/staging/most/configfs.c | 97 +++++++++++++++++++++-- > > > > ---- > > > > -------------- > > > > 1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-) > > > Why isn't this just part of patch 1/14 here? No need to create a > > > problem and then have to fix it up later in the same series :) > > > > > This is not part of patch 1/14, because it does a different thing. > > I just wanted to point out that this patch has small changes when > > "diffed" against v1. These changes have been introduced when I > > rebased the patch set with the changes in 1/14 recommended by Dan > > Carpenter. In principle, it does the very same as before. Nothing > > has been added. > My point is, why not add the "more self explaining" attribute names > the > first time around when you add the configfs.c file? Why add it and > then > later on change it? What did that benifit anyone? > Got your point. I'll fix it up. But then the patch series would be shorter as this patch is going to be merged with the first one. What does this mean to the reroll count? Can I do a v4 that has less patches than its predecessor? thanks, Chris > thanks, > > greg k-h > _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
