On 02/14/2014 06:16 PM, Carsten Emde wrote: > Hi Sebastian, Hi Carsten, > you submitted a patch of a patch - it's not funny and very difficult to read. > I allowed myself to transform it to a normal separate patch on top of the one > that you patched. It can be merged lateron. > > Isn't this better? (We always did it this way.) Yes, we always did that way. This time it is different. I received 20 patches from Nicholas dealing with checkpatch issues. It contained code changes like fixes of white space and other changes that fall into the category cosmetic - code change at all. Others change the body of the patch because checkpatch did not like a twice the same person in a signed-of-by line or Toasted-by was not a valid tag and so on. I did not want any of this patches to extend unnecessary the -RT queue so I want them merged right in the first patch where the problem occurs. I also did not want to deal with fallout when I merge the patches back into the original and a following patch does no longer apply. So I asked Nicholas do it this way. This patch did a little more because it replaced NR_CPUS with something else and therefore I considered it important enough to send it to the mailing list. The other will be mentioned in the announcement email will be part of the incremental patch. > > -Carsten. Sebastian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
