On Wed, 2012-01-11 at 18:58 -0800, Sarah Sharp wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 09:04:34AM +0800, Alex,Shi wrote: > > > > > This doesn't belong here either. All it does is remove code that was > > > added by the previous patch. If you don't want the code, don't add it > > > in the first place. > > > > Did you mean to merge the 2 patches into one? That should resolve your > > concern. So, how about the following new patch. > > No, Alan meant that, in a patchset, you shouldn't add comments or code, > only to have delete them in the next patchset. Thanks for explanation. In fact, the first patch just save our HCD that have no line IRQ in current code. The second patch does further more in another level, it resolve similar problem for all xhci HCD. So it covers what'd to do in first patch and the code/comments deletion is reasonable. and it is bisect safe. Maybe I should not send both of patches in one patchset. but they have some code dependency. Oh, what the correct behavior for these patches sending in this scenario? BTW, in fact, originally I just write the second patch. And than split them into 2 according to Sarah's suggestion. If you think the first patch is not needed. you can take the combined one. :) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
