linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] edits in greybus driver

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Tue, 21 Mar 2023 19:26:00 +0200
From:   Menna Mahmoud <eng.mennamahmoud.mm@...il.com>
To:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
Cc:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, outreachy@...ts.linux.dev,
        johan@...nel.org, elder@...nel.org, vireshk@...nel.org,
        thierry.reding@...il.com, u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de,
        greybus-dev@...ts.linaro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] edits in greybus driver


On ٢١‏/٣‏/٢٠٢٣ ١٨:٣٩, Julia Lawall wrote:
>
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2023, Menna Mahmoud wrote:
>
>> On ٢١/٣/٢٠٢٣ ١٣:٤٦, Julia Lawall wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 Mar 2023, Menna Mahmoud wrote:
>>>
>>>> This patchset includes change happened in greybus driver in three
>>>> different files two of them patch one and three related to
>>>> checkpatch issue and in second patch convert two
>>>> `container_of` macros into inline functions.
>>>>
>>>> Menna Mahmoud (3):
>>>>     staging: greybus: remove unnecessary blank line
>>>>     staging: greybus: use inline function for macros
>>>>     staging: greybus: remove unnecessary blank line
>>> Different patches should have different subject lines.
>> But I have already the same edit in both file, so should I re-write the
>> subject for one of them?
>>>     You need to either
>>> be more specific about the file affected or merge the two patches with the
>>> same subject into one.
>> each patch related to different file. So, Can I to merge two commits for
>> different files but have the same edit in one patch?
> They are both for greybus, which is what you advertise in the subject
> line.  And the sense of the changes is the same, and the changes are quite
> simple.  So I think you could just put them in one patch.  If you find
> other occurrences of the problem in greybus you could make one patch that
> fixes all of them.
>
>> but in this case no need to create patchset for all changes in `greybus`
>> driver, right?
> A patchset is needed if the changes affect the same file, because there
> might be complications if the patches are applied in the wrong order.
>
>> If okay with that, should I versioning the patches to resend them again, or
>> should add "RESEND" subject prefix?
> RESEND would be if you send exactly the same thing, because some time has
> passed and you are worried that the patch has been lost.  Now that you
> have put these in a series, it is perhaps best to leave them in a series
> and increase the version number, to avoid confusion on the part of people
> reading the patches.
>
> julia


understood, thanks Julia.


Menna

>
>> please tell me the best way to resend these patches, appreciate your help.
>>
>>
>> Menna
>>
>>
>>> julia
>>>
>>>>    drivers/staging/greybus/gbphy.h                  | 10 ++++++++--
>>>>    drivers/staging/greybus/greybus_authentication.h |  1 -
>>>>    drivers/staging/greybus/pwm.c                    |  1 -
>>>>    3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 2.34.1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
> >