From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752439AbbHRGPF (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 18 Aug 2015 02:15:05 -0400
Received: from mail-pa0-f44.google.com ([209.85.220.44]:36348 "EHLO
	mail-pa0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751229AbbHRGPD (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 18 Aug 2015 02:15:03 -0400
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:44:54 +0530
From: Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rapha=EBl?= Beamonte <raphael.beamonte@gmail.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Greg Donald <gdonald@gmail.com>,
        Cristina Opriceana <cristina.opriceana@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/20] staging: rtl8192u: r8192U_core: fix consistent
 spacing code style error
Message-ID: <20150818061454.GH2941@sudip-pc>
References: <cover.1439688440.git.raphael.beamonte@gmail.com>
 <b9959e7d7c80c82527bf6acf788a3998fc7931f9.1439688440.git.raphael.beamonte@gmail.com>
 <20150818050222.GB2941@sudip-pc>
 <CAE_Gge0hoBesmz2m3wzkUOx5k+pWzmZVuFiXs2OiXaS+Op1wnw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150818054415.GF2941@sudip-pc>
 <CAE_Gge1SSLD66r_Gzj668w_K8=9P=1MqmRd3oWQ_G5iK5BkiBQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAE_Gge1SSLD66r_Gzj668w_K8=9P=1MqmRd3oWQ_G5iK5BkiBQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 02:02:49AM -0400, Raphaël Beamonte wrote:
> 2015-08-18 1:44 GMT-04:00 Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com>:
> > I think that will be better, since you are sending the patch for
> > consistent spacing.
> 
> Actually, going through the bunch of patches, it seems that the
> whitespace neatening one is taking care of that. That one patch was
> mostly about taking care of the checkpatch "consistent spacing"
> warning.
> Two solutions here:
> (1) I can merge both patches and make a general whitespace neatening
> one, taking care of that too.
> (2) I can clarify the commit messages of each patches to explain the
> aim of each.
> Of course, in (1) too I'd take care of explaining the whole point of
> the commit. What do you think would be the best approach at this
> point?
If both the patches are doing the same change then it will be better to
combine them in one. Just remember two things while sending patches:
1) your commit message should describe the change you are doing and
incase of big changes mention why you are doing it.
2) You should not do more than one type of change in a patch.

regards
sudip