On Thu, Jan 06, 2022 at 12:00:26PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 07:13:06PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote: > > On Wednesday 05 January 2022 09:51:48 Ray Jui wrote: > > > On 1/5/2022 1:35 AM, Pali Rohár wrote: > > > > 2. I suppose 'PCI_CLASS_BRIDGE_PCI_NORMAL' is defined in some common PCI > > > header in a separate patch as described in the commit message. Then how > > > come these patches are not constructed with a patch series? > > > > Yes, PCI_CLASS_BRIDGE_PCI_NORMAL is a new constant for common pci header > > file defined in patch linked in commit message. > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20211220145140.31898-1-pali@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > Originally I included this change in v1 of linked patch in December but > > I realized that it does not match standard PCI config space (different > > offset 0x43c vs 0x08 and also different shift 0x8 vs 0x0) and probably > > there is something either incorrect or really non-standard. So later in > > December I dropped iproc_pcie_check_link() change in v2 of the linked > > patch where is introduced PCI_CLASS_BRIDGE_PCI_NORMAL and now sent new > > change for iproc_pcie_check_link() separately. > > > > Technically, linked patch in commit message is just extracting code into > > the common macros without any functional changed. But change in this > > iproc_pcie_check_link() has also functional change as now also lower 8 > > bits of class code are changed. So in my opinion this patch should be > > really separate of linked patch. > > > > I hope that Lorenzo and Bjorn take patches in correct order... > > If patches are not sent together in a series, you can't assume > anything about the order they'll be applied in. Adding a note about > "this patch depends patch X" helps a little but adds a fair amount of > friction to the process. Indeed, more so given that the dependency requires an ACK from other maintainers - I certainly can't pull this patch as-is. Lorenzo
