From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] networking/cs89x0.txt: delete stale information about hand patching Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:52:00 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20130111.165200.1745883038834908852.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20130112004558.GB4625@windriver.com> <20130111.164717.998537291622337013.davem@davemloft.net> <20130112005109.GC4625@windriver.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: paul.gortmaker@windriver.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:48988 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753355Ab3ALAwB (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jan 2013 19:52:01 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20130112005109.GC4625@windriver.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Paul Gortmaker Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 19:51:09 -0500 > [Re: [PATCH net-next] networking/cs89x0.txt: delete stale information about hand patching] On 11/01/2013 (Fri 16:47) David Miller wrote: > >> From: Paul Gortmaker >> Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 19:45:58 -0500 >> >> > [Re: [PATCH net-next] networking/cs89x0.txt: delete stale information about hand patching] On 11/01/2013 (Fri 16:31) David Miller wrote: >> > >> >> From: Paul Gortmaker >> >> Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 19:19:36 -0500 >> >> >> >> > Output of a git grep happened to make me look into this file, and >> >> > I found instructions about how to hand patch (without using patch) >> >> > the driver into the kernel tree. >> >> > >> >> > Since the driver has been a part of the mainline kernel for years, >> >> > we can dump this whole section. Fortunately it doesn't even cause >> >> > a renumbering of the sections to do so. >> >> > >> >> > Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker >> >> >> >> When removing a section you should fix up the numbers of the >> >> remaining sections and any cross references within. >> > >> > Ah crap, I was so glad that I didn't have to renumber anything, that >> > I did forget to delete the dangling TOC entry; thanks for spotting >> > that, and sorry for the v2 on something so trivial. >> >> Section 5 is still numbered 5, you didn't renumber the sections after >> the one you are removing, as I asked you to. > > I deleted section 4.4 -- which was the last section in 4.x -- there > still is sections 4.0 --> 4.3 so there is no renumbering required. My bad, I thought 4.x was empty, I'll apply this, thanks.