Kewen:
On 6/3/24 23:00, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> Hi Carl,
>
> on 2024/5/29 23:52, Carl Love wrote:
>> This patch was approved in the previous series. There are no changes to
>> this patch. Reposting for completeness.
> I guess you can just push the approved ones, as there is no dependency
> between any two of them? It can help to reduce the size of this series.
The patches do touch some similar files so they are not completely independent
from a patch standpoint. Functionally they are all independent.
I tried applying the approved patches only to the current mainline tree. The
approved patches were: 1,3,5 (with tweak), 6, 8, 9, 10, 12. Patch 5 requires a
little rebasing due to a little fuzz in the lines. Not a big deal. Patch 8
also doesn't apply cleanly with git. The patch command gets a little confused
when I tried to use it, so I had to manually "recreate" the patch. The changes
are straight forward so that is fairly easy. The rest of the patches applied
cleanly with git. I am guessing there will be some rebasing needed for the
non-approved patches to apply them after the approved patches.
The main reason that I reposted everything was that the patch numbers changed
and I wanted it to be fairly clear what was going on.
I toyed with the idea of committing the 8 approved patches and then working on
the additional 5 but I think that is hard as I would have to manually adjust
the patch numbers to keep them lined up with version 3 or version 4 has a new
numbering patches 1 to 5 (i.e. remapping of version 3 patch numbers). Either
way I think it would be hard/confusing.
Given that separating out the approved and non-approved patches causes some
re-basing issues, it is probably best to just update the 5 patches, posting
them as version 4 and not re-post the whole series. I will just note in the
header patch 0/13 the patches that have already been approved. I hope that is
ok?
Carl
