Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 6:15 PM Tony Chuang <yhchuang@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> This NULL pointer was found months ago and has been fixed already. >> Thanks for your test :). >> I am holding the patch to fix it for the next patchsets. >> >> BTW, since rtw88 has not been accepted, could I send next patch set based on >> this patch set as long as I explicitly mark that the next patch is based on the previous one? > > I'd normally expect that if you find major bugs in your initial driver > submission that still isn't reviewed/merged, you might as well just > roll the fix into latest version and describe it in the > cover-letter/changelog. This particular change is so trivial it > doesn't really seem to deserve a separate patch. > > (It would also help people like me, who may very well run into the > same bug when they get around to testing/reviewing the driver.) > > I also don't know what the contents of the "next patch set" is -- if > it's a lot of new features, maybe they don't deserve to clutter the > initial submission, but if they're bugfixes like this, it seems like > you could just fix the original patch set. This is what I suggest as well. Don't add new features or any other large changes while the driver is under review, instead keep them in a separate branch etc. But bugfixes are ok. -- Kalle Valo
