> On 20-Mar-2016, at 7:56 PM, Larry Finger <larry.fin...@lwfinger.net> wrote: > > On 03/20/2016 08:59 AM, Parth Sane wrote: >> Removed checkpatch warning caused by FSF address block >> Signed-off-by: Parth Sane <laerdevstud...@gmail.com> >> --- >> drivers/staging/rtl8712/hal_init.c | 4 ---- >> 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) > > Now you have at least 3 different patches all with the same subject! How is > the maintainer supposed to keep them separate? Patchworks will replace each > of them with the next one having the same title. > > A better way would be to create a multiple-part set of patches with the > subject containing the name of the file being "fixed". > > Note that this warning was added to checkpatch.pl well after the driver was > added to the staging tree. In fact, if this warning had been present then, > the FSF address would have been removed. > > I consider this type of patch to be of minimal value; however, if you do not > remove this warning, then someone else will. Thus, you should repackage these > changes. By my count, there are 94 files containing this information. > Dropping them as one set of patches might be too many at once. I would split > them into groups of 13 files in one batch, 14 in the next, then 15, 16, 17, > and finally 19, then each group will also be distinguishable. > > If GregKH wants it done differently, he will let us know. > > Larry > Hi, It has been pointed out to me that I should send patch sets. I will be doing so. So please ignore the earlier sent patches except the parenthesis patch. Its been a pleasure to work with such a helpful community and hope to do do more in the future. Regards, Parth Sane
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
