On Thu, 2016-12-01 at 01:47 -0500, Len Brown wrote:
> Thanks for sending the patch, I've made this change to my turbostat
> branch for 4.10.
> I did not apply your patch directly because for some reason it didn't
> appear in patchwork for linux-pm,
> only for lkml, which I do not review.
The missing from linux-pm was my mistake due to lack of experience and
perspicacity; I did not add the linux-pm list to cc because I could not
find an entry for turbostat on MAINTAINERS file. Probably, it is
mentioned implicitly but I did not come across it.
> Also, your patch depended on your style update patch to use the model
> # macros.
> Unfortunately what you did not know was that I'd already applied a
> slightly different style update patch.
> (and it was my fault that I did not push it upstream before my summer
> sabbatical, sorry)
NP, this was an easy change made automatically by my script.
> In general, though, a good strategy when mixing style and
> functionality patches
> is to do the functionality first. The reason is both that style
> patches tend to conflict more,
> and you don't want them to hold up the functionality.
> Also, if your functionality patch does not depend on style,
> it is easier to backport to distros who avoid style updates.
Thanks for the tip.
However, in this case, I got comments to use the macros instead raw
numbers in my patch and remove unnecessary comments. It caused that the
style patch came first.