Re: [PATCH v7 1/2] spi: add support for DLN-2 USB-SPI adapter

From: Octavian Purdila <octavian.purdila@intel.com>
To: Laurentiu Palcu <laurentiu.palcu@intel.com>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@linux.intel.com>,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>, Johan Havold <johan@kernel.org>,
	linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/2] spi: add support for DLN-2 USB-SPI adapter
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 21:21:04 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAE1zotKH7PfYyr1hLnMxOvbeOv-qC2XPzyh_ekHTqQyvy=w1LQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141128181326.GA23784@lpalcu-laptop>

On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Laurentiu Palcu
<laurentiu.palcu@intel.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 04:01:56PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 05:31:25PM +0200, Laurentiu Palcu wrote:
>> > On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 03:14:35PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
>> > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 04:57:04PM +0200, Laurentiu Palcu wrote:
>>
>> > > > The other patch in this series was already applied by Lee on
>> > > > for-mfd-next branch:
>>
>> > > What this means is that the series you're sending actually contains one
>> > > patch, not two.  The point of numbering patches within a series is so
>> > > people can tell what order to apply them in, nothing else.  Things can
>> > > be lumped together and split during the upstreaming process, the only
>> > > thing that matterrs is what you're sending at a given time.
>>
>> > The order of the patches in this series can be interchanged. However, if
>> > you wish, I can resend the entire series again.
>>
>> No, please don't - you're missing the point.  The point is that now Lee
>> has applied the other patch you're not sending two patches any more,
>> you're sending a single patch.  This isn't patch 1/2, it's just a single
>> patch by itself now.
> I have to admit Linux kernel mailing list workflow is a little new to
> me...
>
> All I did was send new revisions of the 1/2 patch using the
> --in-reply-to option of git-send-email, with the message-id of the
> original version. I used to do this for other projects I contributed to,
> so I didn't have to re-send the entire series for just one patch that
> needs to be changed. Mail clients, at least the ones I use (mutt,
> evolution), order the mails nicely and you have all the history in one
> thread. So, one can see the cover letter of the series and the other
> original patches in the series, together with the new revisions of the
> changed patch. Of course, if more patches needed change, I would re-send a new
> series.
>
> So, Mark, can you please instruct me (a link to a page explaining the
> workflow would be fine too) what is the exact workflow you are/were
> expecting?
>

Mark was expecting to see [PATCH v7] instead of [PATCH v7 1/2] since
patch 2/2 of the series was already applied.