On Fri, 2004-07-16 at 16:51, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
In message 1090009011.23992.5.camel@blarg.somerset.sps.mot.com you wrote:
Here is a patch for the MPC8540/8560ADS and STXGP3 boards that is primarily to support larger DDR memories up to 2G.
Can you please think of a better subject line for your patches?
What would you like? I meant to convey that:
- It was a [PATCH] - It was for the MPC85XXADS boards, - A specific patch release identified by date, - That it came in multiple parts, in this case -1 and -2, - That its primary purpose was TLB/DDR related
Most of that information is geared towards potential searching of the archives, your information, my internal logging, and hopefully some form of "quick identification".
Where did I go wrong?
I find it extremely confusing when I first get a patch titled:
[PATCH] MPC85XXADS-20040716.patch for TLB/DDR
and then another one (split in 2 parts) titled
[PATCH] MPC85XXADS-20040716.patch-1 for TLB/DDR
I tend to assume that these are redundand, and dump one of them.
In fact, I was 5K over the mailing list size limit and was informed that it wasn't sent to the list. Last time I sent something to the list that was over the size limit, you specifically asked me to resend it in multiple parts.
So this time, that is exactly what I did.
So yes, it was redundant and one of the patches, the first, was expected to be /dev/nulled. In the second posts, I clearly indicated that it was a re-send of the earlier one due to size limit problems.
Looking closer, I find that at least one subject is totally wrong.
My apologies.
Wolfgang Denk
jdl