From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: troy.kisky@boundarydevices.com (Troy Kisky)
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 08:35:32 -0700
Subject: [PATCH net-next V3 00/16] net: fec: cleanup and fixes
In-Reply-To: <20160406.235804.2223760831702758803.davem@davemloft.net>
References: <1459909562-22865-1-git-send-email-troy.kisky@boundarydevices.com>
 <20160406.172029.2094647648319882709.davem@davemloft.net>
 <5705B33D.7060808@boundarydevices.com>
 <20160406.235804.2223760831702758803.davem@davemloft.net>
Message-ID: <57067E44.8090906@boundarydevices.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 4/6/2016 8:58 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Troy Kisky <troy.kisky@boundarydevices.com>
> Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 18:09:17 -0700
> 
>> On 4/6/2016 2:20 PM, David Miller wrote:
>>>
>>> This is a way too large patch series.
>>>
>>> Please split it up into smaller, more logical, pieces.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>
>> If you apply the 1st 3 that have been acked, I'll be at 13.
>>
>> Would I then send the next 5 for  V4, and when that is applied
>> send another V4 with the next 8 that have been already been acked?
> 
> What other reasonable option is there?  I can't think of any.
> 

A V1 for the next 8 would not be too unreasonable.

From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Troy Kisky <troy.kisky@boundarydevices.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V3 00/16] net: fec: cleanup and fixes
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 08:35:32 -0700
Message-ID: <57067E44.8090906@boundarydevices.com>
References: <1459909562-22865-1-git-send-email-troy.kisky@boundarydevices.com>
 <20160406.172029.2094647648319882709.davem@davemloft.net>
 <5705B33D.7060808@boundarydevices.com>
 <20160406.235804.2223760831702758803.davem@davemloft.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, fugang.duan@nxp.com, lznuaa@gmail.com,
	fabio.estevam@nxp.com, l.stach@pengutronix.de, andrew@lunn.ch,
	tremyfr@gmail.com, gerg@uclinux.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, johannes@sipsolutions.net,
	stillcompiling@gmail.com, sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com,
	arnd@arndb.de
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-pa0-f48.google.com ([209.85.220.48]:32943 "EHLO
	mail-pa0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751440AbcDGPff (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Thu, 7 Apr 2016 11:35:35 -0400
Received: by mail-pa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id zm5so56991339pac.0
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 08:35:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20160406.235804.2223760831702758803.davem@davemloft.net>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On 4/6/2016 8:58 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Troy Kisky <troy.kisky@boundarydevices.com>
> Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 18:09:17 -0700
> 
>> On 4/6/2016 2:20 PM, David Miller wrote:
>>>
>>> This is a way too large patch series.
>>>
>>> Please split it up into smaller, more logical, pieces.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>
>> If you apply the 1st 3 that have been acked, I'll be at 13.
>>
>> Would I then send the next 5 for  V4, and when that is applied
>> send another V4 with the next 8 that have been already been acked?
> 
> What other reasonable option is there?  I can't think of any.
> 

A V1 for the next 8 would not be too unreasonable.