[PATCH 0/5] 2.4.27-pre3 pcnet32.c

[PATCH 0/5] 2.4.27-pre3 pcnet32.c

[Don Fry]

Please apply the following patches to 2.4.27-pre3.  The first four are simple
"one line" fixes. The last removes the timer I added a little while ago,
as it added complexity without improving performance.

[PATCH 1/5] 2.4.27-pre3 pcnet32 add static to two routines.
[PATCH 2/5] 2.4.27-pre3 pcnet32 avoid hard hang with some chip variants.
[PATCH 3/5] 2.4.27-pre3 pcnet32 correct 79C976 variant string.
[PATCH 4/5] 2.4.27-pre3 pcnet32 fix boundary comparison bug.
[PATCH 5/5] 2.4.27-pre3 pcnet32 remove timer and complexity.


-- 
Don Fry
brazilnut@us.ibm.com

Re: [PATCH 0/5] 2.4.27-pre3 pcnet32.c

[Jeff Garzik]

Don Fry wrote:
> Please apply the following patches to 2.4.27-pre3.  The first four are simple
> "one line" fixes. The last removes the timer I added a little while ago,
> as it added complexity without improving performance.
> 
> [PATCH 1/5] 2.4.27-pre3 pcnet32 add static to two routines.
> [PATCH 2/5] 2.4.27-pre3 pcnet32 avoid hard hang with some chip variants.
> [PATCH 3/5] 2.4.27-pre3 pcnet32 correct 79C976 variant string.
> [PATCH 4/5] 2.4.27-pre3 pcnet32 fix boundary comparison bug.
> [PATCH 5/5] 2.4.27-pre3 pcnet32 remove timer and complexity.


It would help me a lot if you changed your email subject line in two 
minor ways:

1) Include the kernel version _inside_ the brackets,

	[PATCH 1/5 2.4.27-pre3]

2) Just to make it look a tad nicer and more consistent with other 
changelog entries, add a colon after the driver name:

	[PATCH 1/5 2.6.6] pcnet32: mark two routines static

This allows me to pass your submission fully automated through scripts. 
  The resultant one-line description of your patch becomes

	[PATCH] pcnet32: mark two routines static

when my scripts merge your patch into the BK repository.

BTW, you don't need to resend your 2.4 and 2.6 pcnet32 patches, this is 
just for future reference.

	Jeff


P.S.  Somebody should put this into Documentation/SubmittingPatches...

Re: [PATCH 0/5] 2.4.27-pre3 pcnet32.c

[Don Fry]

Jeff,

Three more questions.

1) Should there be a patch number when the number of patches is not known
in advance, or should it be omitted?
 [PATCH 1 2.4.27] pcnet32: whatever
 [PATCH 2 2.4.27] pcnet32: something else

2) If a group of patches is submitted and then more bugs are discovered
which should be fixed, what should I do?
 [PATCH 5/5 2.4.27] pcnet32: ...
 [PATCH 6 2.4.27] pcnet32: a couple days later

3) If an error is discovered in a patch and the patch itself should be
fixed, how would you like that indicated?
 [PATCH 8/5 2.4.27] pcnet32: submitted
 [PATCH 8/5 2.4.27] pcnet32: oops, this should be different.

> 
> Don Fry wrote:
> Status: O
> 
> > Please apply the following patches to 2.4.27-pre3.  The first four are simple
> > "one line" fixes. The last removes the timer I added a little while ago,
> > as it added complexity without improving performance.
> > 
> > [PATCH 1/5] 2.4.27-pre3 pcnet32 add static to two routines.
> > [PATCH 2/5] 2.4.27-pre3 pcnet32 avoid hard hang with some chip variants.
> > [PATCH 3/5] 2.4.27-pre3 pcnet32 correct 79C976 variant string.
> > [PATCH 4/5] 2.4.27-pre3 pcnet32 fix boundary comparison bug.
> > [PATCH 5/5] 2.4.27-pre3 pcnet32 remove timer and complexity.
> 
> 
> It would help me a lot if you changed your email subject line in two 
> minor ways:
> 
> 1) Include the kernel version _inside_ the brackets,
> 
> 	[PATCH 1/5 2.4.27-pre3]
> 
> 2) Just to make it look a tad nicer and more consistent with other 
> changelog entries, add a colon after the driver name:
> 
> 	[PATCH 1/5 2.6.6] pcnet32: mark two routines static
> 
> This allows me to pass your submission fully automated through scripts. 
>   The resultant one-line description of your patch becomes
> 
> 	[PATCH] pcnet32: mark two routines static
> 
> when my scripts merge your patch into the BK repository.
> 
-- 
Don Fry
brazilnut@us.ibm.com