Hi Carl, on 2024/6/6 06:25, Carl Love wrote: > Kewen: > > On 6/3/24 23:00, Kewen.Lin wrote: >> Hi Carl, >> >> on 2024/5/29 23:52, Carl Love wrote: >>> This patch was approved in the previous series. There are no changes to >>> this patch. Reposting for completeness. >> I guess you can just push the approved ones, as there is no dependency >> between any two of them? It can help to reduce the size of this series. > > The patches do touch some similar files so they are not completely > independent from a patch standpoint. Functionally they are all independent. > > I tried applying the approved patches only to the current mainline tree. The > approved patches were: 1,3,5 (with tweak), 6, 8, 9, 10, 12. Patch 5 requires > a little rebasing due to a little fuzz in the lines. Not a big deal. Patch > 8 also doesn't apply cleanly with git. The patch command gets a little > confused when I tried to use it, so I had to manually "recreate" the patch. > The changes are straight forward so that is fairly easy. The rest of the > patches applied cleanly with git. I am guessing there will be some rebasing > needed for the non-approved patches to apply them after the approved patches.
IMHO, you can first reorder the patches in your WIP branch (like the approved ones go first) with git rebase -i, then rebase with the latest trunk, there may be some conflicts but I'd expect there are not many. > > The main reason that I reposted everything was that the patch numbers changed > and I wanted it to be fairly clear what was going on. OK, if you push them, you can also specify the commit hashes for the pushed ones in cover letter. > > I toyed with the idea of committing the 8 approved patches and then working > on the additional 5 but I think that is hard as I would have to manually > adjust the patch numbers to keep them lined up with version 3 or version 4 > has a new numbering patches 1 to 5 (i.e. remapping of version 3 patch > numbers). Either way I think it would be hard/confusing. > > Given that separating out the approved and non-approved patches causes some > re-basing issues, it is probably best to just update the 5 patches, posting > them as version 4 and not re-post the whole series. I will just note in the > header patch 0/13 the patches that have already been approved. I hope that > is ok? Sure, I'm totally fine if you prefer this way. :) BR, Kewen
