From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 724DCC4363A for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 10:07:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB1F42078D for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 10:07:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mork.no header.i=@mork.no header.b="M8CCDT0u" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725988AbgJEKHg (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Oct 2020 06:07:36 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:55306 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725946AbgJEKHg (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Oct 2020 06:07:36 -0400 Received: from canardo.mork.no (canardo.mork.no [IPv6:2001:4641::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35176C0613CE; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 03:07:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from miraculix.mork.no (miraculix.mork.no [IPv6:2001:4641:0:2:7627:374e:db74:e353]) (authenticated bits=0) by canardo.mork.no (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 095A7Eld017632 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 5 Oct 2020 12:07:15 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mork.no; s=b; t=1601892435; bh=PqmCIbdmGhzQjUN7EiP+m0+p7uGY3mf6YJwZ9pKQlyY=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:Message-ID:From; b=M8CCDT0uuaWsIR4WtnFhfSmKkCp0+1fGkT7oNM0BUlkg+BNSA8Xbdoquqo2DGm6wq +zA4nLazFyPe8I6Cslr90X/Srm7AjF/hmfBMNyHn4jkF7PllyPi13zMnzulD69SHV3 hN+A1E7AfVGpBSmicYtxITfv4ltzyQNtdRjKXIJM= Received: from bjorn by miraculix.mork.no with local (Exim 4.94) (envelope-from ) id 1kPNOi-000oZA-E0; Mon, 05 Oct 2020 12:07:12 +0200 From: =?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B8rn_Mork?= To: Wilken Gottwalt Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" , Jakub Kicinski , Johan Hovold , Greg Kroah-Hartman , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] usb: serial: qmi_wwan: add Cellient MPL200 card Organization: m References: <4688927cbf36fe0027340ea5e0c3aaf1445ba256.1601715478.git.wilken.gottwalt@mailbox.org> <87d01yovq5.fsf@miraculix.mork.no> <20201004203042.093ac473@monster.powergraphx.local> Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2020 12:07:12 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20201004203042.093ac473@monster.powergraphx.local> (Wilken Gottwalt's message of "Sun, 4 Oct 2020 20:30:42 +0200") Message-ID: <87eemdnfzj.fsf@miraculix.mork.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.4 at canardo X-Virus-Status: Clean Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Wilken Gottwalt writes: > Oh sorry, looks like I got it mixed up a bit. It was my first attempt to = submit > a patch set. Which is the best way to resubmit an update if the other par= t of > the patch set gets accepted? The documentation about re-/submitting patch= sets > is a bit thin. I see that Johan already has answered this. Just wanted to add that you don't need to worry about doing anything wrong. It was not my intention to scare you :-) Fixing up and resending patches is a natural part of the patch submission process. Don't be afraid to resubmit. The worst that can happen is that you'll be asked to fix up something else. That's not a problem. The most important part is to make it clear that a resubmission replaces an earlier version of the same patch. This should be visible in the subject. E.g by using a revision number inside the brackes, like [PATCH v2] net: qmi_wwan: add Cellient MPL200 card This tells us that the patch is a revised "v2" of an earlier patch, and that it replaces "v1". Patches without an explicit revision will then be assumed to be "v1". If you are sending a series, then the whole series should usually be resubmitted with the new revsion number. Even patches without any changes. The cover letter should then also summarize the changes for each revisions. But as Johan said: The USB serial and net patches go through different trees and are therefore best handled as standalone patches, even if they deal with the same USB composite device.=20 Bj=C3=B8rn