Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] bcma: add empty PCIe hostmode functions if support is disabled

["Rafał Miłecki" <zajec5@gmail.com>]

On 26 January 2015 at 13:31, Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 26 January 2015 at 07:58, Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>>> Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> This allows us to drop some #ifdef magic (mess).
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> 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