Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1305934 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH 0/2] mfd: smsc-ece1099: Fine-tuning for smsc_i2c_probe()

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH 0/2] mfd: smsc-ece1099: Fine-tuning for smsc_i2c_probe() Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2016-01-11 09:10 +0100
    Re: [PATCH 0/2] mfd: smsc-ece1099: Fine-tuning for smsc_i2c_probe() SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2016-01-12 10:10 +0100
      Re: [PATCH 0/2] mfd: smsc-ece1099: Fine-tuning for smsc_i2c_probe() Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2016-01-12 10:20 +0100
        Re: mfd: smsc-ece1099: Fine-tuning for smsc_i2c_probe() SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2016-01-12 12:10 +0100
          Re: mfd: smsc-ece1099: Fine-tuning for smsc_i2c_probe() Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2016-01-12 12:20 +0100
            Re: mfd: smsc-ece1099: Fine-tuning for smsc_i2c_probe() SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2016-01-12 12:50 +0100
              Re: mfd: smsc-ece1099: Fine-tuning for smsc_i2c_probe() Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2016-01-12 13:10 +0100

#1305934 — Re: [PATCH 0/2] mfd: smsc-ece1099: Fine-tuning for smsc_i2c_probe()

This set is confusing.

Why do you have a cover letter specifying this as a 2 patch set, yet
there are 4 patches attached to it?

> From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 15:10:48 +0100

What format is this?

> A few update suggestions were taken into account
> from static source code analysis.
> 
> Markus Elfring (2):
>   Delete an unnecessary variable initialisation
>   Refactoring
> 
>  drivers/mfd/smsc-ece1099.c | 11 ++++-------
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1307128

> This set is confusing.
> 
> Why do you have a cover letter specifying this as a 2 patch set,
> yet there are 4 patches attached to it?

I do not see too many messages for this update suggestion.


>> From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
>> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 15:10:48 +0100
> 
> What format is this?

Are such specifications needed to preserve the desired authorship information
during the transfer of commit messages by email?

Regards,
Markus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1307134

On Tue, 12 Jan 2016, SF Markus Elfring wrote:

> > This set is confusing.
> > 
> > Why do you have a cover letter specifying this as a 2 patch set,
> > yet there are 4 patches attached to it?
> 
> I do not see too many messages for this update suggestion.

In my inbox, your set looks like this:

Dec 29 2015 SF Markus Elfring (  0) ┬>[PATCH] mfd-dm355evm_msp: One function call less in add_child() after error detection
Dec 29 2015 SF Markus Elfring (  0) ├>[PATCH 0/2] mfd: smsc-ece1099: Fine-tuning for smsc_i2c_probe()
Dec 29 2015 SF Markus Elfring (  0) │├>[PATCH 2/2] mfd: smsc-ece1099: Refactoring for smsc_i2c_probe()
Dec 29 2015 SF Markus Elfring (  0) │└>[PATCH 1/2] mfd: smsc-ece1099: Delete an unnecessary variable initialisation in smsc_i2c_probe()
Dec 29 2015 SF Markus Elfring (  0) └>[PATCH] mfd: twl-core: One function call less in add_numbered_child() after error detection

... which is unconventional and pretty confusing.

> >> From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
> >> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 15:10:48 +0100
> > 
> > What format is this?
> 
> Are such specifications needed to preserve the desired authorship information
> during the transfer of commit messages by email?

How did you sent this set?  I fear you are sending these patches
manually, using your mail client.  You should instead be creating
patches with `git format-patch` and sending them using `git
send-email`.  Then the formatting will be correct.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1307274 — Re: mfd: smsc-ece1099: Fine-tuning for smsc_i2c_probe()

> In my inbox, your set looks like this:

Thanks for your information. - I find the display correct.


> ... which is unconventional and pretty confusing.

Do you request that I should resend my four update suggestions
for different components as a single patch series for the software
area "drivers/mfd"?


> I fear you are sending these patches manually, using your mail client.

I admit that I am doing this usually.


> You should instead be creating patches with `git format-patch`

This happens also …


> and sending them using `git send-email`.

I prefer other software tools for this task so far.

Regards,
Markus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1307284 — Re: mfd: smsc-ece1099: Fine-tuning for smsc_i2c_probe()

On Tue, 12 Jan 2016, SF Markus Elfring wrote:

> > In my inbox, your set looks like this:
> 
> Thanks for your information. - I find the display correct.
> 
> > ... which is unconventional and pretty confusing.
> 
> Do you request that I should resend my four update suggestions
> for different components as a single patch series for the software
> area "drivers/mfd"?

You have to make that decision yourself.  What I'm saying is, if the
cover letter says there are 2 patches in the set, that's what we
should expect.

> > I fear you are sending these patches manually, using your mail client.
> 
> I admit that I am doing this usually.

Please don't do that.

> > You should instead be creating patches with `git format-patch`
> 
> This happens also …
> 
> > and sending them using `git send-email`.
> 
> I prefer other software tools for this task so far.

Such as?

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1307311 — Re: mfd: smsc-ece1099: Fine-tuning for smsc_i2c_probe()

>> Do you request that I should resend my four update suggestions
>> for different components as a single patch series for the software
>> area "drivers/mfd"?
> 
> You have to make that decision yourself.

I chose on 2015-12-29 to send them in the combination you see.


> What I'm saying is, if the cover letter says there are 2 patches

These refer to the component "smsc-ece1099".


> in the set, that's what we should expect.

Can changes for the components "dm355evm_msp" and "twl-core"
be clarified independently?

Regards,
Markus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1307330 — Re: mfd: smsc-ece1099: Fine-tuning for smsc_i2c_probe()

On Tue, 12 Jan 2016, SF Markus Elfring wrote:

> >> Do you request that I should resend my four update suggestions
> >> for different components as a single patch series for the software
> >> area "drivers/mfd"?
> > 
> > You have to make that decision yourself.
> 
> I chose on 2015-12-29 to send them in the combination you see.

That was not a good choice.

> > What I'm saying is, if the cover letter says there are 2 patches
> 
> These refer to the component "smsc-ece1099".

That's fine.  Then there should have been 2 patches in the set.  But
then to attach 2 unrelated patches to the set is not fine.  They
should have either been submitted as part of the set i.e. 0/4 or
completely separately.

> > in the set, that's what we should expect.
> 
> Can changes for the components "dm355evm_msp" and "twl-core"
> be clarified independently?

Yes, or together would have also been fine.  The only think that is
not okay is to submit a set of 2 patches, then to "bolt-on" another
2 for some reason.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web