On 9/12/2012 11:17 AM, David Miller wrote: > From: Naresh Kumar Inna <naresh@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 11:05:22 +0530 > >> On 9/11/2012 11:03 PM, David Miller wrote: >>> From: Naresh Kumar Inna <naresh@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 20:09:07 +0530 >>> >>>> This patch contains minor fixes to make cxgb4vf driver work with the updates to >>>> shared firmware/hardware header files. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Naresh Kumar Inna <naresh@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> You cannot submit a patch set that isn't bisectable, and in particular >>> create a situation that mid-way through your patch set things do not >>> build or operate correctly. >>> >> >> Sorry, I am new to this process. The reason I did that was because I was >> not sure if I could create a single patch with both cxgb4 and cxgb4vf >> files in it, since they are two different subsystems. If I could do >> that, the single patch then would build on its own, and not be dependent >> on the other patches in the series. Is that something I can do? > > I don't know how else to say this, every step along the way the tree > has to build. You arrange the patches however necessary to achieve > that goal. > OK, I think I should be able to arrange the patch set to fulfill that requirement. I was under the impression it was fine for new drivers to split patches in this fashion, since they go as a single commit, sorry about that. As for a single patch with both cxgb4 and cxgb4vf changes, I assume it is OK for the commit log to start with "cxgb4/cxgb4vf:..."? Thanks, Naresh. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
