drivers/staging/greybus/gbphy.h | 10 ++++++++-- drivers/staging/greybus/greybus_authentication.h | 1 - drivers/staging/greybus/pwm.c | 1 - 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
This patchset includes change happened in greybus driver in three different files two of them patch one and three related to checkpatch issue and in second patch convert two `container_of` macros into inline functions. Menna Mahmoud (3): staging: greybus: remove unnecessary blank line staging: greybus: use inline function for macros staging: greybus: remove unnecessary blank line drivers/staging/greybus/gbphy.h | 10 ++++++++-- drivers/staging/greybus/greybus_authentication.h | 1 - drivers/staging/greybus/pwm.c | 1 - 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) -- 2.34.1
On Tue, 21 Mar 2023, Menna Mahmoud wrote: > This patchset includes change happened in greybus driver in three > different files two of them patch one and three related to > checkpatch issue and in second patch convert two > `container_of` macros into inline functions. > > Menna Mahmoud (3): > staging: greybus: remove unnecessary blank line > staging: greybus: use inline function for macros > staging: greybus: remove unnecessary blank line Different patches should have different subject lines. You need to either be more specific about the file affected or merge the two patches with the same subject into one. julia > > drivers/staging/greybus/gbphy.h | 10 ++++++++-- > drivers/staging/greybus/greybus_authentication.h | 1 - > drivers/staging/greybus/pwm.c | 1 - > 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > -- > 2.34.1 > > >
On ٢١/٣/٢٠٢٣ ١٣:٤٦, Julia Lawall wrote: > > On Tue, 21 Mar 2023, Menna Mahmoud wrote: > >> This patchset includes change happened in greybus driver in three >> different files two of them patch one and three related to >> checkpatch issue and in second patch convert two >> `container_of` macros into inline functions. >> >> Menna Mahmoud (3): >> staging: greybus: remove unnecessary blank line >> staging: greybus: use inline function for macros >> staging: greybus: remove unnecessary blank line > Different patches should have different subject lines. But I have already the same edit in both file, so should I re-write the subject for one of them? > You need to either > be more specific about the file affected or merge the two patches with the > same subject into one. each patch related to different file. So, Can I to merge two commits for different files but have the same edit in one patch? but in this case no need to create patchset for all changes in `greybus` driver, right? If okay with that, should I versioning the patches to resend them again, or should add "RESEND" subject prefix? please tell me the best way to resend these patches, appreciate your help. Menna > > julia > >> drivers/staging/greybus/gbphy.h | 10 ++++++++-- >> drivers/staging/greybus/greybus_authentication.h | 1 - >> drivers/staging/greybus/pwm.c | 1 - >> 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> -- >> 2.34.1 >> >> >>
On Tue, 21 Mar 2023, Menna Mahmoud wrote: > > On ٢١/٣/٢٠٢٣ ١٣:٤٦, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > On Tue, 21 Mar 2023, Menna Mahmoud wrote: > > > > > This patchset includes change happened in greybus driver in three > > > different files two of them patch one and three related to > > > checkpatch issue and in second patch convert two > > > `container_of` macros into inline functions. > > > > > > Menna Mahmoud (3): > > > staging: greybus: remove unnecessary blank line > > > staging: greybus: use inline function for macros > > > staging: greybus: remove unnecessary blank line > > Different patches should have different subject lines. > But I have already the same edit in both file, so should I re-write the > subject for one of them? > > You need to either > > be more specific about the file affected or merge the two patches with the > > same subject into one. > > each patch related to different file. So, Can I to merge two commits for > different files but have the same edit in one patch? They are both for greybus, which is what you advertise in the subject line. And the sense of the changes is the same, and the changes are quite simple. So I think you could just put them in one patch. If you find other occurrences of the problem in greybus you could make one patch that fixes all of them. > but in this case no need to create patchset for all changes in `greybus` > driver, right? A patchset is needed if the changes affect the same file, because there might be complications if the patches are applied in the wrong order. > > If okay with that, should I versioning the patches to resend them again, or > should add "RESEND" subject prefix? RESEND would be if you send exactly the same thing, because some time has passed and you are worried that the patch has been lost. Now that you have put these in a series, it is perhaps best to leave them in a series and increase the version number, to avoid confusion on the part of people reading the patches. julia > please tell me the best way to resend these patches, appreciate your help. > > > Menna > > > > > > julia > > > > > drivers/staging/greybus/gbphy.h | 10 ++++++++-- > > > drivers/staging/greybus/greybus_authentication.h | 1 - > > > drivers/staging/greybus/pwm.c | 1 - > > > 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > > > -- > > > 2.34.1 > > > > > > > > > >
On ٢١/٣/٢٠٢٣ ١٨:٣٩, Julia Lawall wrote: > > On Tue, 21 Mar 2023, Menna Mahmoud wrote: > >> On ٢١/٣/٢٠٢٣ ١٣:٤٦, Julia Lawall wrote: >>> On Tue, 21 Mar 2023, Menna Mahmoud wrote: >>> >>>> This patchset includes change happened in greybus driver in three >>>> different files two of them patch one and three related to >>>> checkpatch issue and in second patch convert two >>>> `container_of` macros into inline functions. >>>> >>>> Menna Mahmoud (3): >>>> staging: greybus: remove unnecessary blank line >>>> staging: greybus: use inline function for macros >>>> staging: greybus: remove unnecessary blank line >>> Different patches should have different subject lines. >> But I have already the same edit in both file, so should I re-write the >> subject for one of them? >>> You need to either >>> be more specific about the file affected or merge the two patches with the >>> same subject into one. >> each patch related to different file. So, Can I to merge two commits for >> different files but have the same edit in one patch? > They are both for greybus, which is what you advertise in the subject > line. And the sense of the changes is the same, and the changes are quite > simple. So I think you could just put them in one patch. If you find > other occurrences of the problem in greybus you could make one patch that > fixes all of them. > >> but in this case no need to create patchset for all changes in `greybus` >> driver, right? > A patchset is needed if the changes affect the same file, because there > might be complications if the patches are applied in the wrong order. > >> If okay with that, should I versioning the patches to resend them again, or >> should add "RESEND" subject prefix? > RESEND would be if you send exactly the same thing, because some time has > passed and you are worried that the patch has been lost. Now that you > have put these in a series, it is perhaps best to leave them in a series > and increase the version number, to avoid confusion on the part of people > reading the patches. > > julia understood, thanks Julia. Menna > >> please tell me the best way to resend these patches, appreciate your help. >> >> >> Menna >> >> >>> julia >>> >>>> drivers/staging/greybus/gbphy.h | 10 ++++++++-- >>>> drivers/staging/greybus/greybus_authentication.h | 1 - >>>> drivers/staging/greybus/pwm.c | 1 - >>>> 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 2.34.1 >>>> >>>> >>>> > >
On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 06:22:44PM +0200, Menna Mahmoud wrote: > > On ٢١/٣/٢٠٢٣ ١٣:٤٦, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > On Tue, 21 Mar 2023, Menna Mahmoud wrote: > > > > > This patchset includes change happened in greybus driver in three > > > different files two of them patch one and three related to > > > checkpatch issue and in second patch convert two > > > `container_of` macros into inline functions. > > > > > > Menna Mahmoud (3): > > > staging: greybus: remove unnecessary blank line > > > staging: greybus: use inline function for macros > > > staging: greybus: remove unnecessary blank line > > Different patches should have different subject lines. > But I have already the same edit in both file, so should I re-write the > subject for one of them? > > You need to either > > be more specific about the file affected or merge the two patches with the > > same subject into one. > > each patch related to different file. So, Can I to merge two commits for > different files but have the same edit in one patch? Yes, or make 2 different patches with 2 different subject lines as they are obviously doing different things. > but in this case no need to create patchset for all changes in `greybus` > driver, right? > > If okay with that, should I versioning the patches to resend them again, or > should add "RESEND" subject prefix? > > please tell me the best way to resend these patches, appreciate your help. What would you want to see if you had to review and apply loads of patches like this? (hint, it's not a resend, but a new version...) thanks, greg k-h
On ٢١/٣/٢٠٢٣ ١٨:٢٦, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 06:22:44PM +0200, Menna Mahmoud wrote: >> On ٢١/٣/٢٠٢٣ ١٣:٤٦, Julia Lawall wrote: >>> On Tue, 21 Mar 2023, Menna Mahmoud wrote: >>> >>>> This patchset includes change happened in greybus driver in three >>>> different files two of them patch one and three related to >>>> checkpatch issue and in second patch convert two >>>> `container_of` macros into inline functions. >>>> >>>> Menna Mahmoud (3): >>>> staging: greybus: remove unnecessary blank line >>>> staging: greybus: use inline function for macros >>>> staging: greybus: remove unnecessary blank line >>> Different patches should have different subject lines. >> But I have already the same edit in both file, so should I re-write the >> subject for one of them? >>> You need to either >>> be more specific about the file affected or merge the two patches with the >>> same subject into one. >> each patch related to different file. So, Can I to merge two commits for >> different files but have the same edit in one patch? > Yes, or make 2 different patches with 2 different subject lines as they > are obviously doing different things. okay, I will fix it. > >> but in this case no need to create patchset for all changes in `greybus` >> driver, right? >> >> If okay with that, should I versioning the patches to resend them again, or >> should add "RESEND" subject prefix? >> >> please tell me the best way to resend these patches, appreciate your help. > What would you want to see if you had to review and apply loads of > patches like this? sure add version number will be easy to review. > (hint, it's not a resend, but a new version...) > > thanks, > > greg k-h Thanks, Menna
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.