[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3b681d28-c3f9-7d54-f3f3-eccb51479356@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2016 19:45:40 +0200
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: iio: Adjust checks for null pointers in six functions
> Also, I'm afraid I don't care enough to put the time in for this one.
It's a pity.
>> Does the tool "Git" let you also apply this update step before
>> the other suggestions?
> It rarely copes with this sort of reordering as it doesn't have
> the semantic knowledge of what matters in the other patches.
I assume that the involved software developers got a specific impression
about the discussed patch series for this software module so that a few
relevant dependencies became clearer eventually.
I proposed some update steps where I chose a specific patch granularity
once more. So I imagine that a bit of variation in the patch order
could be supported already.
Will it be possible to apply also this one a bit later just because
the patch hunk contexts might be still valid in the (near) future?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists