Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761773AbYALDWf (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jan 2008 22:22:35 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757883AbYALDWZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jan 2008 22:22:25 -0500 Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:39345 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751644AbYALDWX (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jan 2008 22:22:23 -0500 Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 19:21:34 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Alan Stern Cc: Greg KH , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] PM: Do not destroy/create devices while suspended (rev. 2) Message-Id: <20080111192134.52769758.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20080112005619.GA4665@suse.de> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.1 (GTK+ 2.8.17; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1686 Lines: 39 On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 22:11:52 -0500 (EST) Alan Stern wrote: > On Fri, 11 Jan 2008, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 04:49:04PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > err, no. pm-introduce-destroy_suspended_device.patch demolishes > > > pm-acquire-device-locks-on-suspend-rev-3.patch > > > > > > Confused, giving up. > > > > I'm confused too, I have no idea what the proper order of things should > > be either. Anyone want to give me a hint? > > Sorry for the confusion. The correct patch to apply is > pm-acquire-device-locks-on-suspend-rev-3 (plus the attending > style-fixups). It encompasses those earlier patches. > > The real problem is that our current email workflow patterns don't > provide a standardized way for maintainers to tell when a new patch > submission is meant to override or replace an earlier submission (or > even a set of earlier submissions). Does anybody have some suggestions > for a good way to do this? > Don't formally send it until it's ready. Seriously. You can always resend it if it didn't get applied anywhere. Once a patch reaches a sufficient level of maturity for it to be ready to be merged into a subsystem tree, any subsequent changes should be sufficiently small that incremental patches are the way to apply touchups. The core problem here is that (lots of) people are flinging patches at tree-owners before they are sufficiently baked. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/