On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 07:15:13PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 10:20:12AM +0100, Nariman Poushin wrote: > > > it be accepted), should I: > > - Squash all the updates in to this patch (I suppose the benefit > > there is that we don't break the kernel build from one patch > > to the other) > > You need to squash the changes in since they break bisection if handled > separately. It would be better to do this by having a separate patch to > add the newly named structure rather than adding the new functionality > at the same time. That makes the patch more mechanical and easier to > review.
Ok, I have a patch set ready (as you described) but I am having some problem deciding on the correct distribution, the squashed patch that touches a whole bunch of subsystems ends up with a monstrous get_maintainer.pl output, so even going through and checking MAINTAINERS I have ended up with a large list (26 individuals and lists). Is this ok? I am not sure if it is going to get bounced by mail servers as spam or whether it's bad etiquette to do this, but as you say we don't want to break the bisection. Thanks Nariman -- 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/
