From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lee Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] ASoC: ux500: Do not clear state if already idle Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 12:04:51 +0100 Message-ID: <20130508110451.GC3459@gmail.com> References: <20130508080448.GG3102@gmail.com> <1368002354-15471-1-git-send-email-fabio.baltieri@linaro.org> <20130508103401.GX7478@sirena.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130508103401.GX7478@sirena.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Brown Cc: Fabio Baltieri , Liam Girdwood , alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Walleij , Ola Lilja List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On Wed, 08 May 2013, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 10:39:14AM +0200, Fabio Baltieri wrote: > > As enable_msp gets called only after some audio data has been recei= ved, > > if the userspace closes the device before sending any data it cause= s > > ux500_msp_i2s_close to clear device state even if it was not previo= usly > > initialized. >=20 > Ugh, please don't do stuff like this - you're posting an individual > revision of a patch buried in the middle of a thread. This just make= s > things hard to follow and error prone. Repost the patch series It's so much more convenient to do it this way. Re-sending entire patch-sets for small fixups is clumsy and annoying at best. Creating much more churn than is actually required. Sending patches again signally i.e. not as a reply to the original [PATCH x/x], would be even more prone to error. Personally, I like to get the niggles and fixups out of the way using this method, then send the entire patch-set again, complete with all of the reaped Acks once there are significant fixes or when I believe it to be finished and ready for applying. Surely most people have their mail setup as threaded? Then the time-line and subsequent patch versions are very easy to follow aren't they? I get a nice trace like this: > Fabio Baltieri ( 0) =E2=94=9C>[PATCH 2/6] ASoC: ux500: > To Fabio Baltieri ( 0) =E2=94=82=E2=94=94> > Fabio Baltieri ( 0) =E2=94=82 =E2=94=94>[PATCH v2 2/6] ASo= C: =2E.. or even better would be to reply to the original one, then subsequent versions won't be "buried in the thread" per say: > Fabio Baltieri ( 0) =E2=94=9C>[PATCH 2/6] ASoC: ux500: > Fabio Baltieri ( 0) =E2=94=82 =E2=94=94>[PATCH v2 2/6] ASo= C: > To Fabio Baltieri ( 0) =E2=94=82-> > or wait until what can be applied is applied then repost. Taking patches out-of-order, or 'willy-nilly', is asking for trouble. --=20 Lee Jones Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead Linaro.org =E2=94=82 Open source software for ARM SoCs =46ollow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog