On Wed, 3 Oct 2012, Daniel Santos wrote: > Thanks. I've actually just reversed the patch order per Josh's > suggestion and added patch comments to it. I can squash them if you > guys prefer. >
No need to be so fine-grained in your patches, if you're trying to replace __linktime_error with __compiletime_error, which happens to be the title of the patch (and should remain the title), then just remove it's single occurrence and its definition at the same time with a clear changelog that __compiletime_error is sufficient. No need to have two small patches with the same motivation. > Unfortunately, I'm a bit confused as to how I should re-submit these, > still being new to this project. Patch 1 is already in -mm. Patches 2-3 > have not changed. I've made a correction to patch #4 and reversed the > order of 5 & 6. And what was 8-10 is now 8-15, as I've completely > re-done BUILD_BUG_ON. I was planning on just submitting the whole set > again, is this the correct protocol? If so, should I reply to the > original [PATCH 0/10] thread or create a new one? > You already have a patch in -mm, so you have to base your series on that tree. Get the latest -mm tree from http://www.ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/ and base the revised series on that tree, then send it off to Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org> and cc the list and your reviewers. People often find it helpful to make it clear that this is v2 of the patchset and that it's based on -mm as a helpful pointer. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
