From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Rientjes Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/10] bug.h: Replace __linktime_error with __compiletime_error Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 11:26:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <1348874411-28288-1-git-send-email-daniel.santos@pobox.com> <1348874411-28288-7-git-send-email-daniel.santos@pobox.com> <506C2636.6020304@att.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: Received: from mail-da0-f46.google.com ([209.85.210.46]:43138 "EHLO mail-da0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933250Ab2JCS0e (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2012 14:26:34 -0400 Received: by dakn41 with SMTP id n41so1341979dak.19 for ; Wed, 03 Oct 2012 11:26:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <506C2636.6020304@att.net> Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Santos Cc: LKML , Andi Kleen , Andrea Arcangeli , Andrew Morton , Christopher Li , David Daney , David Howells , Joe Perches , Konstantin Khlebnikov , linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org, Michel Lespinasse , Paul Gortmaker , Pavel Pisa , Peter Zijlstra , Steven Rostedt 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. > 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 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.