On Monday 25 April 2016 11:39:11 Eric Engestrom wrote: > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:57:15AM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > > Hi, > > > > this requires a commit message. > > OK? This seems rather pointless in this case (and even more so for the > typo fix I sent yesterday), but I guess you have some general rule to > enforce. Would this do then? > "The second `const` is unnecessary, and is simply ignored by most compilers." Maybe say you you found it (llvm, sparse, coccinelle?), and why this is causing a problem for anyone. If it's just unnecessary but not harmful, I'd probably ignore the patch. > > Also, you should think about separating those changes in multiple patches > > to ease inclusion in the kernel. > > I'll resend patch #4 as multiple patches. What the way proper to convey > that *multiple* new patches replace *one* old one? Is it enough to just > send those as a reply to this one? That's fine. Having multiple patches here is slightly better than just one, but I'd also be fine with just taking the large patch because it is an identical trivial change in multiple files. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
