On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 05:53:48AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:

quoted text
> Here's an earlier comment:

quoted text
> On Thu, 2010-11-18 at 13:30 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > This looks reasonable, please rebase on top of Daniel's patches and
> > submit it properly (with changelog and so on). 

quoted text
> Sometimes it's simpler for an upstream maintainer to do
> something like:

Bearing in mind the above please note that discursive stuff like this
should come after the --- or in a separate mail so that it's separated
from the commit log for tools like git am.  You submit a large number of
patches, you should be aware of things like this.

quoted text
> git am -s <patch1.mbox>
> patch -p1 < patch2.mbox
> git commit --amend file

quoted text
> instead of back and forthing.

The other standard approach is to delete patches after review which does
make that rather difficult; resubmission is much more standard than
incremental revisions of unapplied patches and is going to work even if
people are OK with the incremental patches.

quoted text
> Use rdev_<level> convenience macros to emit rdev_get_name(rdev)
> along with whatever format/arg... is supplied.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>

Acked-by: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/