From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mms1.broadcom.com ([216.31.210.17]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1OmTK6-0002W6-Qz for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:16:04 +0000 Message-ID: <4C6E9C23.6060703@broadcom.com> Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 08:15:47 -0700 From: "Brian Norris" MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Shinya Kuribayashi" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Deprecate ECCGETLAYOUT References: <4C5CA4A1.1040000@broadcom.com> <1282154806-9420-1-git-send-email-norris@broadcom.com> <4C6DD170.1060807@renesas.com> In-Reply-To: <4C6DD170.1060807@renesas.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Artem Bityutskiy , Linux Kernel , Sneha Narnakaje , "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" , David Woodhouse , Brian Norris List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi, Sorry for the problems. I will try to explain. On 08/19/2010 05:50 PM, Shinya Kuribayashi wrote: > [PATCH v3 1/2] mtd: Expand nand_ecc_layout, deprecate ioctl ECCGETLAYOUT > [PATCH v3 2/2] (I can't find this in my inbox, by the way) There was no PATCH v3 2/2. See below. > I'd like to see the info about what's updated in v2, v3 when revised. The only difference is that I actually sent the correct patch :) Again, I explain below. > By the way. > > On 8/19/2010 3:06 AM, Brian Norris wrote: >> Brian Norris (2): >> mtd: nand: Expand nand_ecc_layout, deprecate ioctl ECCGETLAYOUT >> mtd: nand: Expand nand_ecc_layout, deprecate ioctl ECCGETLAYOUT > > Two patches with the same title. Similar symptom can be seen in your > latest v3 post (we can't find [PATCH v3 2/2]). Perhaps something weird > is in your repository (or git settings). No problem with git, just my inability to express my "2 independent patch" problem properly. First, I sent my original patch 08/06/2010: [PATCH] mtd: Expand nand_ecc_layout, deprecate ioctl ECCGETLAYOUT Realizing this may not necessarily have been the *best* way to accomplish my goal, I sent v2: [PATCH v2 1/2] mtd: nand: Expand... [PATCH v2 2/2] mtd: nand: Expand... These two patches were supposed to be two different, independent approaches to the same task; with discussion over how best to do this, we should settle on one of the two patches. I decided (for good or for bad) that they didn't need a new title - they were essentially the same code with a slight twist. However, instead of sending two different patches, I sent the same one twice (my mistake). Finally, I sent v3 to include just the missing patch: [PATCH v3 1/2] mtd: Expand... I only included the missing patch and called it v3. So this leaves the important patch set as the following two independent, slightly different approaches to the same problem; we should choose between them: [PATCH v3 1/2] mtd: Expand... [PATCH v2 2/2] mtd: nand: Expand... Sorry if my naming, numbering, and failure of intelligence in sending e-mail confused anyone. I can resend with distinct names and correct numbering if requested. Thanks, Brian