[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87de4033-3b58-3ef6-d22b-b90901885b39@axentia.se>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 16:10:49 +0200
From: Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Peter Korsgaard <peter.korsgaard@...co.com>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Peter Meerwald <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
Antti Palosaari <crope@....fi>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@....samsung.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@...el.com>,
Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@...el.com>,
Adriana Reus <adriana.reus@...el.com>,
Matt Ranostay <matt.ranostay@...el.com>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>,
Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@...co.com>,
Terry Heo <terryheo@...gle.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Tommi Rantala <tt.rantala@...il.com>,
Crestez Dan Leonard <leonard.crestez@...el.com>,
<linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, Peter Rosin <peda@...ator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 16/24] i2c: allow adapter drivers to override the
adapter locking
On 2016-05-03 23:39, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>> Yes, they look like reasonable complaints.
>
> Thanks for fixing them. I just sent out my latest comments and when you
> fix those and send V8, I'll apply that right away. I think we are safe
> to fix the rest incrementally if needed. Note that I didn't review the
Sounds like a plan.
> IIO and media patches, I trust the reviewers on those.
>
> Thanks for your work on this! I need a break now, this is
> mind-boggling...
And thanks for reviewing it!
A question on best practices here... I already did a v8 (but only as
a branch) so I think this will be v9, bit that's a minor detail. The
real question is what I should do about patches 1-15 that are already
in next? Send them too? If not, should I send 16-24 with the same old
patch numbers or should they be numbered 1-9 now? And should such a
shortened series be rebased on 1-15 in next?
Or does it not really matter?
Cheers,
Peter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists