Hi Sam, On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 12:24:43AM -0600, Sam Edwards wrote: > On 3/20/24 20:28, Andi Shyti wrote: > > > Sorry about the resend; it seems my mail client "helpfully" swallowed the > > > newlines on any line consisting only of whitespace, garbling the patches. > > > > I received three series from you: > > > > 1. [RESEND v2 RFC 1/5] i2c: mv64xxx: Clear bus errors before transfer > > 2. [RFC PATCH 0/5] Enhancements for mv64xxx I2C driver > > 3. [RESEND RFC PATCH 0/5] Enhancements for mv64xxx I2C driver > > > > By the versioning, 1. is good, the rest is not good. Standing to > > the time sent and comments in patch '0', 3. is good, the rest > > not. > > > > Which one should be discarded? Can you please state it clearly? ... > I sent the series in the order 2-3-1, so 1 is the version to look at (though > I made no content changes between resends as I was only fighting my mail > client's formatting). so that it's the [RFC v2 ...] the right series... are you sure? The order of arrival is: 1. Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 16:51:51 -0600 2. Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 19:40:51 -0600 3. Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 22:19:53 -0600 Anyway, I will take "1" as the good one, being a v2. I will discard "2" and "3". Then, please, do not forget next time the patch 0 and the changelog. ... > > Can you please make sure, next time (unless someone asks to > > resend them again), that the patches are threaded? You can send > > them to yourself first and see if they are really threaded. > > Yes, definitely. I take it from your phrasing that you're willing to collect > the scattered mails yourself this one time only? If so, thank you for > cleaning up after my mess. :) > > If not (and/or if someone else doesn't like the mess), I can always resend. > I have already made one cleanup (removing the useless `default:` at the end > of the FSM) so I guess it would technically be an "RFC v2" at this point. For now no need to resend (unless someone complains). Let's give it some time for review. Andi
