From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Gortmaker Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] networking/cs89x0.txt: delete stale information about hand patching Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 19:51:09 -0500 Message-ID: <20130112005109.GC4625@windriver.com> References: <1357949976-11463-1-git-send-email-paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> <20130111.163112.1015838278440673633.davem@davemloft.net> <20130112004558.GB4625@windriver.com> <20130111.164717.998537291622337013.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mail.windriver.com ([147.11.1.11]:64254 "EHLO mail.windriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755069Ab3ALAvL (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jan 2013 19:51:11 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130111.164717.998537291622337013.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: [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. P.