| Message ID | 1431968041-3226-1-git-send-email-shailendra.capricorn@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 10:24:01PM +0530, Shailendra Verma wrote: > this patch is 11/11 , but I can not see your remaining 1/11 to 10/11 patches. have you posted them yet? regards sudip > Signed-off-by: Shailendra Verma <shailendra.capricorn@gmail.com> > --- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 10:31:36AM +0530, Shailendra Verma wrote: > Hello Sudip, > > Those were my older patches in different module and I had posted them > already. Hi, You do not need to mention the count of your older patches here. When you mentioned 11/11, it meant your current submission is a patchset of 11 patches. So when the maintainer decides to apply your patch he will search your remaining 10 patches because he needs to apply them in series. regards sudip > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 11:25:08AM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > You do not need to mention the count of your older patches here. While technically true... > When you mentioned 11/11, it meant your current submission is a patchset > of 11 patches. So when the maintainer decides to apply your patch he will > search your remaining 10 patches because he needs to apply them in series. ... this doesn't matter much for such cleanup series. They obviously have no dependency and I assume that the other patches are for other subsystems. This is fine, too.
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 08:20:47AM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 11:25:08AM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > > > You do not need to mention the count of your older patches here. > > While technically true... > > > When you mentioned 11/11, it meant your current submission is a patchset > > of 11 patches. So when the maintainer decides to apply your patch he will > > search your remaining 10 patches because he needs to apply them in series. > > ... this doesn't matter much for such cleanup series. They obviously > have no dependency and I assume that the other patches are for other > subsystems. This is fine, too. yes, I also asssumed the same. But it turned out that he has sent 10/10 on 15th May, and then 11/11 , 12/12 , 13/13 and 14/14 on May 18th. So I assumed that it is a wrong setting while creating his patch. isn't it? regards sudip -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 10:24:01PM +0530, Shailendra Verma wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Shailendra Verma <shailendra.capricorn@gmail.com> Applied to for-next, thanks!
diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c index 987c124..c40141b 100644 --- a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c +++ b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c @@ -1673,7 +1673,7 @@ void i2c_del_adapter(struct i2c_adapter *adap) * FIXME: This is old code and should ideally be replaced by an * alternative which results in decoupling the lifetime of the struct * device from the i2c_adapter, like spi or netdev do. Any solution - * should be throughly tested with DEBUG_KOBJECT_RELEASE enabled! + * should be thoroughly tested with DEBUG_KOBJECT_RELEASE enabled! */ init_completion(&adap->dev_released); device_unregister(&adap->dev);
Signed-off-by: Shailendra Verma <shailendra.capricorn@gmail.com> --- drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)