On Mon, 2020-12-14 at 11:03 -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 13:16:08 +0200 Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 11:30:08AM +0100, Vasyl Gomonovych wrote: > > > It is fix for semantic patch warning available in > > > scripts/coccinelle/misc/boolinit.cocci > > > Fix en_rx.c:687:1-17: WARNING: Assignment of 0/1 to bool variable > > > Fix main.c:4465:5-13: WARNING: Comparison of 0/1 to bool variable > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Vasyl Gomonovych <gomonovych@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > - Add coccicheck script name > > > - Simplify if condition > > > --- > > > drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/en_rx.c | 2 +- > > > drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/main.c | 2 +- > > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > Please refrain from sending new version of patches as reply-to to > > previous variants. It makes to appear previous patches out-of-order > > while viewing in threaded mode. > > Yes, please! I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way! :) I'm the other way. I prefer revisions to single patches (as opposed to large patch series) in the same thread. There is no other easy way for changes to a patch to be tracked AFAIK. Most email clients use both In-Reply-To: and References: headers as the mechanism to thread replies. Keeping the latest messages at the bottom of a thread works well to see revision sequences.
