On 26 January 2015 at 13:31, Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On 26 January 2015 at 07:58, Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>>> This allows us to drop some #ifdef magic (mess). >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> V2: Return false in bcma_core_pci_is_in_hostmode >>>> Don't (accidentally) modify bcma_host_soc_register_driver >>> >>> It would be far more reliable if you resend the whole patchset instead >>> of resending invidiviual patches within the set. Otherwise the chances >>> are that I apply the wrong version. >> >> Oops. I always take care of removing old versions from patchwork > > Yeah, I noticed that. That's really helpful, thanks for that. > >> and using --in-reply-to, I was hoping it's OK. > > But still ordering is different which might introduce problems while I > apply them. And like in your case, when I have to take the patches from > email due to UTF-8 problems, it won't work at all. > >> How would you like whole patches to be re-send? Should I resend them >> independently? Or should every patch from the patchset include >> In-Reply-To pointing to its previous version? > > Let's say you have a ten patch patchset and you have to change something > in patch 3. I would prefer that you resend the whole patchset (all 10 > patches) and each patch in the patchset has "v2". So the version is > actually version of the patchset, not of the individual patch. > > I assumed this was standard practice everywhere in the kernel, but I > guess I was wrong. It could be just me, maybe I just didn't meet anyone complaining yet. Thanks a lot for your help! -- Rafał -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
