From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-lb0-f179.google.com ([209.85.217.179]:54549 "EHLO mail-lb0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756505AbbAZQRg convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jan 2015 11:17:36 -0500 Received: by mail-lb0-f179.google.com with SMTP id 10so8379244lbg.10 for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 08:17:35 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87siexg1v7.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> References: <1422180674-9592-1-git-send-email-zajec5@gmail.com> <1422190968-14422-1-git-send-email-zajec5@gmail.com> <87iofugh9w.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> <87siexg1v7.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 17:17:34 +0100 Message-ID: (sfid-20150126_171751_577550_273931E9) Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] bcma: add empty PCIe hostmode functions if support is disabled From: =?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= To: Kalle Valo Cc: "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , Hauke Mehrtens Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 26 January 2015 at 13:31, Kalle Valo wrote: > Rafał Miłecki writes: > >> On 26 January 2015 at 07:58, Kalle Valo wrote: >>> Rafał Miłecki writes: >>> >>>> This allows us to drop some #ifdef magic (mess). >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki >>>> --- >>>> 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