From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([74.125.121.67]:25267 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751167Ab1DHE6K (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Apr 2011 00:58:10 -0400 Received: from kpbe13.cbf.corp.google.com (kpbe13.cbf.corp.google.com [172.25.105.77]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p384w7Ba030915 for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 21:58:08 -0700 Received: from ywa8 (ywa8.prod.google.com [10.192.1.8]) by kpbe13.cbf.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p384w6Xl015867 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 21:58:06 -0700 Received: by ywa8 with SMTP id 8so1665003ywa.37 for ; Thu, 07 Apr 2011 21:58:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20110408003742.GD3942@ericsson.com> References: <1302211560-8052-1-git-send-email-natg@google.com> <20110408003742.GD3942@ericsson.com> Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 21:58:05 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Make all it87 drivers SMP safe. From: Natarajan Gurumoorthy To: Guenter Roeck Cc: Jean Delvare , Wim Van Sebroeck , Mike Waychison , "lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-watchdog-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org Guenter, Comments are below On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > Did you consider naming this file include/linux/it87.h as suggested ? > I thought that was a goodd idea. > This does seem to be a good idea. I had some other thoughts about where to place the it87_lock.c file. One thought was to move the lock into the drivers/mfd directory and completely decouple the lock from the watchdog or the hwmon directories. The mfd/Kconfig would contain the IT87_LOCK. > When you send out new versions of your patch set, it would be prudent > to list the patch version, as well as the changes made compared to previous I am new at this. Exactly where do you list the patch version. I put v2 in the subject line. The only difference between the 2 patch sets was that each of the patches has a more verbose body section explaining the contents of the patch and each of the sub patch Subject line reflected what was happening in that sub patch. I also made sure I had the "In-Reply-To" entry in the patches. Where in the patch do you discuss the changes made with respect to the previous patch. When I send out the next set of patches do I have to send out the entire patch set marked as v3. > versions of your patch. See Documents/SubmittingPatches, rule #2. > > Thanks, > Guenter -- Regards Nat Gurumoorthy AB6SJ