[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <95e0287d-3211-3c0d-7a52-740acdb75f45@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 21:56:24 +0200
From: Philipp Hortmann <philipp.g.hortmann@...il.com>
To: Tree Davies <tdavies@...kphysics.net>
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, dan.carpenter@...aro.org,
linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8192e: Rename variable bCurrentHTSupport
On 7/15/23 22:14, Tree Davies wrote:
> Philipp,
>
> I think I understand what I did wrong. Each of these original patches were
> created/based from the same commit hash. So it makes sense that only the
> first one applied would apply cleanly and the others would fail.
>
> My apologies,
> Tree
Hi Tree,
you could work this way if you ensure that each patch does not modify
code (and some lines above and below) a previous patch modified. But it
is not a good way to do so. Existing tools assume that you create your
commits onto each other and then make patches out of them.
Another issue right now is that approximately 18 patches send in and are
possibly applied (for rtl8192e). Your patches need to fit onto those
patches. Otherwise they cannot be applied and will be rejected.
Typically Greg applies all patches once a week. But it seems that he has
a bunch of other more urgent tasks. So you need to focus on other kernel
related task like educate yourself or prepare patches without sending
them in.
Thanks for your support.
Bye Philipp
Powered by blists - more mailing lists