Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] staging: vme: Add VME_BUS dependency to Kconfig - Bruno Moreira-Guedes

From: Bruno Moreira-Guedes <codeagain@codeagain.dev>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Martyn Welch <martyn@welchs.me.uk>,
	Manohar Vanga <manohar.vanga@gmail.com>,
	linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	outreachy@lists.linux.dev,
	Bruno's Patch Watchbox <patch-reply@codeagain.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] staging: vme: Add VME_BUS dependency to Kconfig
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 18:12:58 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220420211258.j23biocryjkuz3qo@AN5Bruno> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YmA4ILK5Gv/Gdaso@kroah.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1882 bytes --]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 06:43:12PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 08:39:29PM -0300, Bruno Moreira-Guedes wrote:
> > Please, disregard the following message as there's a typo in the prefix.
> > 
> > On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 08:31:09PM -0300, Bruno Moreira-Guedes wrote:
> > > The KConfig file for VME_USER ('drivers/staging/vme/devices/Kconfig')
> > > sourced at "drivers/vme/boards/KConfig" misses a `depends on` line for
> > > VME_BUS, which is unnoticeable for menuconfig users who aren't be able
> > > to select it through this interface without setting the CONFIG_VME_BUS
> > > option because it's nested on VME_BUS menu entry.
> > ...
> > >  	  VME windows in a manner at least semi-compatible with the interface
> > > -- 
> > > 2.35.3
> > > 
> > 
> > It's already sent a new copy with the proper version number. Nothing's
> > changed except for the message ID and the v2 typo.
> 
> I can't handle 2 v2 of this same commit, our tools get very confused (as
> do people.)  Would you be able to unwind this if you were in my
> position?
I really apologize for this confusion, I really did some mistakes on my
local branch and had to edit the patches manually to reapply them. While
working on that I accidentally missed to change the 'v2' to 'v3'. My
mistake.

Though, there's no 2 v2s, the new one I sent is a v3 as is the rest of
this thread. So, would it be necessary to unwind anything anyway? 

If this question happens to beb a bad one, my apologies again, I'll soon
do some effort to learn more about how things work from a maintainer's
perspective so next time I make a mistake I'll be able to take the best
curse of action straight away.

> 
> Please resubmit a v3 of this series with everything fixed up.
Did you mean a v4 in this case? Or just post the same patch again?

> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]