Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755941AbcCTO0Y (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Mar 2016 10:26:24 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-f195.google.com ([209.85.214.195]:34302 "EHLO mail-ob0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754147AbcCTO0O (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Mar 2016 10:26:14 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8712: Removed FSF address warning To: Parth Sane , gregkh@linuxfoundation.org References: <1458482397-1599-1-git-send-email-laerdevstudios@gmail.com> Cc: florian.c.schilhabel@googlemail.com, amitoj1606@gmail.com, luisbg@osg.samsung.com, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Larry Finger Message-ID: <56EEB302.3050903@lwfinger.net> Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 09:26:10 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1458482397-1599-1-git-send-email-laerdevstudios@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1283 Lines: 28 On 03/20/2016 08:59 AM, Parth Sane wrote: > Removed checkpatch warning caused by FSF address block > Signed-off-by: Parth Sane > --- > 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