From: Sam Edwards <sam@turingpi.com>
To: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@kernel.org>
Cc: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@bootlin.com>,
linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND RFC PATCH 0/5] Enhancements for mv64xxx I2C driver
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 16:00:53 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7f7866f8-514b-4659-920a-30b566ad157d@turingpi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <wdpnjnuahedvbakhfavoobukdkocjfpfrgsu374sgjhkyy7exz@er4lyeadftyz>
Hi Andi,
On 3/21/24 14:54, Andi Shyti wrote:
> so that it's the [RFC v2 ...] the right series... are you sure?
[RESEND v2 RFC ...] -- it's the second resend (thus third send), not the
second RFC (in retrospect I definitely should have used # instead of v)
>
> The order of arrival is:
>
> 1. Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 16:51:51 -0600
> 2. Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 19:40:51 -0600
> 3. Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 22:19:53 -0600
>
> Anyway, I will take "1" as the good one, being a v2. I will
> discard "2" and "3".
>
> Then, please, do not forget next time the patch 0 and the
> changelog.
Patch 0 was probably separated by the lack of threading but can be found
here: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-i2c/msg68235.html
There is no changelog as there were no changes to the patch content vs.
either of the first two sending attempts; I was only trying a different
way of navigating the minefield of mail agents that make whitespace
changes without my consent. :)
>
> ...
>
>>> Can you please make sure, next time (unless someone asks to
>>> resend them again), that the patches are threaded? You can send
>>> them to yourself first and see if they are really threaded.
>>
>> Yes, definitely. I take it from your phrasing that you're willing to collect
>> the scattered mails yourself this one time only? If so, thank you for
>> cleaning up after my mess. :)
>>
>> If not (and/or if someone else doesn't like the mess), I can always resend.
>> I have already made one cleanup (removing the useless `default:` at the end
>> of the FSM) so I guess it would technically be an "RFC v2" at this point.
>
> For now no need to resend (unless someone complains). Let's give
> it some time for review.
>
> Andi
Thanks again,
Sam
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-21 22:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-20 4:19 [RESEND RFC PATCH 0/5] Enhancements for mv64xxx I2C driver Sam Edwards
2024-03-21 2:28 ` Andi Shyti
2024-03-21 6:24 ` Sam Edwards
2024-03-21 20:54 ` Andi Shyti
2024-03-21 22:00 ` Sam Edwards [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=7f7866f8-514b-4659-920a-30b566ad157d@turingpi.com \
--to=sam@turingpi.com \
--cc=andi.shyti@kernel.org \
--cc=gregory.clement@bootlin.com \
--cc=linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).