Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Thu, 17 Feb 2022 15:50:32 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     "Starke, Daniel" <daniel.starke@siemens.com>
Cc:     "linux-serial@vger.kernel.org" <linux-serial@vger.kernel.org>,
        "jirislaby@kernel.org" <jirislaby@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] tty: n_gsm: fix encoding of control signal octet bit
 DV
Message-ID: <Yg5guD36Usz3cV83@kroah.com>
References: <AM4PR1001MB137883EF5392EE25ED70A912E0369@AM4PR1001MB1378.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <AM4PR1001MB137883EF5392EE25ED70A912E0369@AM4PR1001MB1378.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 02:03:37PM +0000, Starke, Daniel wrote:
> > > > All of these are patch 1/1, which is odd :(
> > > > 
> > > > Please renumber them properly and resend.
> > > 
> > > All these patches are based on the current version of tty-next and are 
> > > completely independent from each other. The only common part is the 
> > > file they apply to. Therefore, this is not a patch series. Would you 
> > > still suggest to apply a different numbering?
> > 
> > Yes, please send them as a patch series, numbered correctly, as a whole
> > series of patches, all listed as 1/1 does not do good things for our
> > tools.
> 
> I have noticed that all patches have been sent in one thread. This was not
> my intention. I see two options here now:
> 1. Resend all patches one by one as they are completely independent.
> 2. Create a patch series.
> 
> And the following two variants in case of option 2:
> a. Just renumber the subjects and resend all (i.e. without a cover letter).

This is fine, and the easiest for everyone involved, as git makes it
automatic.

thanks,

greg k-h