Return-path: Received: from mail-ob0-f173.google.com ([209.85.214.173]:33408 "EHLO mail-ob0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964864AbcCPJm3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Mar 2016 05:42:29 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87pouulqut.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> References: <87wpr3x9ln.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> <1453423965.3856.22.camel@perches.com> <87k2n1x0sf.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> <20160122151211.GB1500@tuxdriver.com> <87si1pvcd7.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> <20160126052823.GA2053@sudip-laptop> <87bn84kdu0.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> <20160201044142.GC4072@sudip-pc> <878u34j0wz.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> <87pouulqut.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> From: Julian Calaby Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 20:42:09 +1100 Message-ID: (sfid-20160316_104249_434918_2F0FE89E) Subject: Re: wireless-drivers: random cleanup patches piling up To: Kalle Valo Cc: Sudip Mukherjee , "John W. Linville" , Joe Perches , linux-wireless , kbuild test robot , kernel-janitors , LKML Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Kalle, On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Kalle Valo wrote: > Julian Calaby writes: > >> Hi Kalle, >> >> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Kalle Valo wrote: >>> Sudip Mukherjee writes: >>> >>>> Sure, I am starting that way. I checked in patchwork and I do not see >>>> any checkpatch related patch pending (except staging, which Greg will >>>> handle). I think you must have cleared all of them. >>> >>> They are in deferred state. The search functionality in patchwork is not >>> that intuitive and they are not easy to find so here's a direct link: >>> >>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/?state=10&order=date >> >> I'm currently going through that list and producing a bundle of >> "applyable" patches. > > Nice. Thanks, I figured that checking the deferred list on patchwork at some point would be a good plan. After a release seemed like a good time to do it. >> My criteria is: >> 1. The change is sane. >> 2. It's either obviously correct, I can review it, or someone else has >> reviewed or acked it. >> 3. No changes other than rebasing and fixing commit messages are >> required to apply it. > > BTW, 'git am -s -3' is the best way to apply a patch. The three way > merge is awesome (if the submitter has sent the patch correctly). > >> Some of these patches need work on their commit messages, some are >> complicated enough that I feel I should be providing review notes so >> someone else can double check my review, and all of them should be >> rebased and compile tested. Also, some are controversial, so I'll be >> segregating them from the main set. >> >> How would you like me to communicate this list to you? I'm happy to >> provide branches you can pull from or I could just post updated >> versions to the list and give reviewed-by tags to those that don't >> need more work. >> >> Every patch will get an email on linux-wireless regardless. > > I guess posting the patches to linux-wireless is the easiest for > everyone? I have a script which automatically takes patches from > patchwork so that's very easy for me. But remember to use Signed-off-by > instead of Reviewed-by as you are resending the patches. If they end up being exactly identical to the original, I'll just add reviewed-bys to the original patches, otherwise I'll do exactly that. > Thanks you, your help here is very much appreciated. No problem! -- Julian Calaby Email: julian.calaby@gmail.com Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/