From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754496AbaIVQXX (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Sep 2014 12:23:23 -0400 Received: from mail-la0-f53.google.com ([209.85.215.53]:48786 "EHLO mail-la0-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753189AbaIVQXV (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Sep 2014 12:23:21 -0400 X-Google-Original-Sender: Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 18:20:50 +0200 From: Johan Hovold To: Octavian Purdila Cc: Johan Hovold , Samuel Ortiz , Lee Jones , lkml , linux-usb@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: viperboard: allocate I/O buffer separately Message-ID: <20140922162050.GL5237@localhost> References: <1411397212-31625-1-git-send-email-octavian.purdila@intel.com> <20140922160844.GK5237@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 07:19:37PM +0300, Octavian Purdila wrote: > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Johan Hovold wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 05:46:52PM +0300, Octavian Purdila wrote: > > Don't mix fixes and clean ups like this, but rather submit them as > > separate patches. > > > Fair enough. Is it OK to send all of the cleanups in a single separate > patch? In this case, I'd say so. But do the clean-ups on top of the minimal fix to facilitate back-porting if someone ever decides that that is needed. Johan