Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH] Staging: rtl8188eu: Use put_unaligned_le16

[Jes Sorensen <jes.sorensen@gmail.com>]

On 02/19/15 03:43, Vaishali Thakkar wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>> On Thursday 19 February 2015 08:35:46 Vaishali Thakkar wrote:
>>> On Feb 19, 2015 4:01 AM, "Jes Sorensen" <jes.sorensen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The key is to make the changes in two commits. In general you can post
>>>> them as part of a multi-commit patch set if you are fixing something in
>>>> a large number of places, or changing an API etc. For more independent
>>>> changes like these, posting them individually is preferred.
>>>>
>>>> I hope this makes more sense.
>>>
>>> Yes. Ok. I will send this patch as a series of patches. One for
>>> put_unaligned_le16 function and other one for removing use of variable.
>>
>> There are lots of ways for splitting a patch series, and usually doing
>> a multiple smaller changes is better than combining them, but there is a
>> limit. In this case you have four changes that could be done separately:
>>
>> a) use put_unaligned_le16 in rtl8188eu
>> b) remove tim_bitmap_le variable in rtl8188eu
>> c) use put_unaligned_le16 in rtl8723au
>> d) remove tim_bitmap_le variable in rtl8723au
>>
>> What Jes and I were saying is that you should do a) combined with b) as
>> one patch, and c) with d) as a second patch, but send them as a series,
>> not a) and c) combined as one patch followed by b) and d) as you understood.
> 
> Oh. ok. Actually there is one misunderstanding here. I already sent 2 separate
> patches. First one combining a) and b) and second one combining c) and d).
> But after Jes's comment what I thought that he wants me to send 2 patch-series
> with 4 different patches where [ a) and b) ]goes for 1st patch-series
> and [c) and d) ]
> goes for 2nd patch-series. But thanks for clearing this.
> 
> I will send a patch-series[ 2 patches- one patch for rtl8188eu and
> second for  rtl8723au]
> as you explained.

Sorry for being ambiguous on this one, Arnd is absolutely right. The a+b
c+d solution is the right way - you are basically fixing up two small
closely related issues, so it is best to keep them together in the same
patch.

Cheers,
Jes