Re: [PATCH 6/10] bug.h: Replace __linktime_error with __compiletime_error

[Daniel Santos <danielfsantos@att.net>]

On 10/03/2012 01:26 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
> 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.
Sounds good to me
>
>> 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 <akpm@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.
I have it checked out from git://git.cmpxchg.org/linux-mmotm.git, the
problem is that I cannot correctly test against that right now because I
get an oops (without my patches) when setting up LVM (same on -next, bug
report here https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48241).  What
I'm thinking about doing is to rebase them against v3.6 again and test
them there, but it will require a few minor changes (due to walken's
patches not being present).  Still, it's better than no re-testing.
Daniel