Re: [PATCH 0/3] edits in greybus driver

[Menna Mahmoud <eng.mennamahmoud.mm@gmail.com>]

On ٢١‏/٣‏/٢٠٢٣ ١٨:٢٦, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 06:22:44PM +0200, Menna Mahmoud wrote:
>> On ٢١‏/٣‏/٢٠٢٣ ١٣:٤٦, Julia Lawall wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 Mar 2023, Menna Mahmoud wrote:
>>>
>>>> This patchset includes change happened in greybus driver in three
>>>> different files two of them patch one and three related to
>>>> checkpatch issue and in second patch convert two
>>>> `container_of` macros into inline functions.
>>>>
>>>> Menna Mahmoud (3):
>>>>     staging: greybus: remove unnecessary blank line
>>>>     staging: greybus: use inline function for macros
>>>>     staging: greybus: remove unnecessary blank line
>>> Different patches should have different subject lines.
>> But I have already the same edit in both file, so should I re-write the
>> subject for one of them?
>>>     You need to either
>>> be more specific about the file affected or merge the two patches with the
>>> same subject into one.
>> each patch related to different file. So, Can I to merge two commits for
>> different files but have the same edit in one patch?
> Yes, or make 2 different patches with 2 different subject lines as they
> are obviously doing different things.
okay, I will fix it.
>
>> but in this case no need to create patchset for all changes in `greybus`
>> driver, right?
>>
>> If okay with that, should I versioning the patches to resend them again, or
>> should add "RESEND" subject prefix?
>>
>> please tell me the best way to resend these patches, appreciate your help.
> What would you want to see if you had to review and apply loads of
> patches like this?
sure add version number will be easy to review.
> (hint, it's not a resend, but a new version...)
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h


Thanks,

Menna