linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] usb: serial: qmi

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87eemdnfzj.fsf@miraculix.mork.no>
Date:   Mon, 05 Oct 2020 12:07:12 +0200
From:   Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no>
To:     Wilken Gottwalt <wilken.gottwalt@...lbox.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] usb: serial: qmi_wwan: add Cellient MPL200 card

Wilken Gottwalt <wilken.gottwalt@...lbox.org> writes:

> Oh sorry, looks like I got it mixed up a bit. It was my first attempt to submit
> a patch set. Which is the best way to resubmit an update if the other part of
> the patch set gets accepted? The documentation about re-/submitting patch sets
> is a bit thin.

I see that Johan already has answered this.  Just wanted to add that you
don't need to worry about doing anything wrong.  It was not my intention
to scare you :-) Fixing up and resending patches is a natural part of
the patch submission process.  Don't be afraid to resubmit.  The worst
that can happen is that you'll be asked to fix up something else.
That's not a problem.

The most important part is to make it clear that a resubmission replaces
an earlier version of the same patch.  This should be visible in the
subject.  E.g by using a revision number inside the brackes, like

  [PATCH v2] net: qmi_wwan: add Cellient MPL200 card

This tells us that the patch is a revised "v2" of an earlier patch, and
that it replaces "v1".  Patches without an explicit revision will then
be assumed to be "v1".

If you are sending a series, then the whole series should usually be
resubmitted with the new revsion number.  Even patches without any
changes. The cover letter should then also summarize the changes for
each revisions.  But as Johan said: The USB serial and net patches go
through different trees and are therefore best handled as standalone
patches, even if they deal with the same USB composite device. 

Bjørn