[PATCH 1/3] net: dsa: Use true instead of 1 in the set_promisc() call
set_promisc() call accepts the parameter of a bool type. Make it clear by using true instead of 1.
Signed-off-by: Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com ---
net/dsa-uclass.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/net/dsa-uclass.c b/net/dsa-uclass.c index 694664d81b..dcefec03f4 100644 --- a/net/dsa-uclass.c +++ b/net/dsa-uclass.c @@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ static int dsa_port_probe(struct udevice *pdev) struct eth_ops *eth_ops = eth_get_ops(master);
if (eth_ops->set_promisc) - eth_ops->set_promisc(master, 1); + eth_ops->set_promisc(master, true);
return 0; }
priv->promisc is used as the parameter of the set_promisc() call which accepts a bool type instead of char.
Signed-off-by: Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com ---
drivers/net/fec_mxc.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/fec_mxc.h b/drivers/net/fec_mxc.h index 62b55ef395..133f535917 100644 --- a/drivers/net/fec_mxc.h +++ b/drivers/net/fec_mxc.h @@ -272,7 +272,7 @@ struct fec_priv { struct clk clk_ref; struct clk clk_ptp; u32 clk_rate; - char promisc; + bool promisc; };
/**
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 01:50:45PM +0800, Bin Meng wrote:
priv->promisc is used as the parameter of the set_promisc() call which accepts a bool type instead of char.
Signed-off-by: Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com
drivers/net/fec_mxc.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/fec_mxc.h b/drivers/net/fec_mxc.h index 62b55ef395..133f535917 100644 --- a/drivers/net/fec_mxc.h +++ b/drivers/net/fec_mxc.h @@ -272,7 +272,7 @@ struct fec_priv { struct clk clk_ref; struct clk clk_ptp; u32 clk_rate;
- char promisc;
- bool promisc;
};
/**
2.25.1
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Oltean vladimir.oltean@nxp.com
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 4:32 PM Vladimir Oltean vladimir.oltean@nxp.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 01:50:45PM +0800, Bin Meng wrote:
priv->promisc is used as the parameter of the set_promisc() call which accepts a bool type instead of char.
Signed-off-by: Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com
drivers/net/fec_mxc.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/fec_mxc.h b/drivers/net/fec_mxc.h index 62b55ef395..133f535917 100644 --- a/drivers/net/fec_mxc.h +++ b/drivers/net/fec_mxc.h @@ -272,7 +272,7 @@ struct fec_priv { struct clk clk_ref; struct clk clk_ptp; u32 clk_rate;
char promisc;
bool promisc;};
/**
2.25.1
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Oltean vladimir.oltean@nxp.com
Reviewed-by: Ramon Fried rfried.dev@gmail.com
redundant_init() is only called in the tsec driver. Make it static.
Signed-off-by: Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com ---
drivers/net/tsec.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/tsec.c b/drivers/net/tsec.c index ee820aae15..b433e411bd 100644 --- a/drivers/net/tsec.c +++ b/drivers/net/tsec.c @@ -432,7 +432,7 @@ static void tsec_halt(struct udevice *dev) * of the eTSEC port initialization sequence, * the eTSEC Rx logic may not be properly initialized. */ -void redundant_init(struct tsec_private *priv) +static void redundant_init(struct tsec_private *priv) { struct tsec __iomem *regs = priv->regs; uint t, count = 0;
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 01:50:46PM +0800, Bin Meng wrote:
redundant_init() is only called in the tsec driver. Make it static.
Signed-off-by: Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com
drivers/net/tsec.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/tsec.c b/drivers/net/tsec.c index ee820aae15..b433e411bd 100644 --- a/drivers/net/tsec.c +++ b/drivers/net/tsec.c @@ -432,7 +432,7 @@ static void tsec_halt(struct udevice *dev)
- of the eTSEC port initialization sequence,
- the eTSEC Rx logic may not be properly initialized.
*/ -void redundant_init(struct tsec_private *priv) +static void redundant_init(struct tsec_private *priv) { struct tsec __iomem *regs = priv->regs; uint t, count = 0; -- 2.25.1
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Oltean vladimir.oltean@nxp.com
About this whole redundant_init thing... the Linux gianfar driver doesn't do it, and it was added by this commit:
commit aada81de703e0fb26ae1a8dc8fc8d6a7a37fa3c9 Author: chenhui zhao chenhui.zhao@freescale.com Date: Mon Oct 3 08:38:50 2011 -0500
powerpc/mpc8548: Add workaround for erratum NMG_eTSEC129
Erratum NMG_eTSEC129 (eTSEC86 in MPC8548 document) applies to some early verion silicons. This workaround detects if the eTSEC Rx logic is properly initialized, and reinitialize the eTSEC Rx logic.
Signed-off-by: Gong Chen g.chen@freescale.com Signed-off-by: Zhao Chenhui chenhui.zhao@freescale.com Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala galak@kernel.crashing.org
Internally I could find a single reference to the eTSEC 86 erratum ("eTSEC receivers may not be properly initialized"), dated 08/2007, and it says it was fixed in MPC8548 silicon version 2.1.
On the other hand it consumes 90 lines of code (10%) of the tsec driver. It would be nice if we could just remove it, I am not sure if anyone would even notice.
Priyanka?
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 8:50 AM Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com wrote:
redundant_init() is only called in the tsec driver. Make it static.
Signed-off-by: Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com
drivers/net/tsec.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/tsec.c b/drivers/net/tsec.c index ee820aae15..b433e411bd 100644 --- a/drivers/net/tsec.c +++ b/drivers/net/tsec.c @@ -432,7 +432,7 @@ static void tsec_halt(struct udevice *dev)
- of the eTSEC port initialization sequence,
- the eTSEC Rx logic may not be properly initialized.
*/ -void redundant_init(struct tsec_private *priv) +static void redundant_init(struct tsec_private *priv) { struct tsec __iomem *regs = priv->regs; uint t, count = 0; -- 2.25.1
Reviewed-by: Ramon Fried rfried.dev@gmail.com
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 01:50:44PM +0800, Bin Meng wrote:
set_promisc() call accepts the parameter of a bool type. Make it clear by using true instead of 1.
Signed-off-by: Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com
net/dsa-uclass.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/net/dsa-uclass.c b/net/dsa-uclass.c index 694664d81b..dcefec03f4 100644 --- a/net/dsa-uclass.c +++ b/net/dsa-uclass.c @@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ static int dsa_port_probe(struct udevice *pdev) struct eth_ops *eth_ops = eth_get_ops(master);
if (eth_ops->set_promisc)
eth_ops->set_promisc(master, 1);
eth_ops->set_promisc(master, true);return 0; }
-- 2.25.1
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Oltean vladimir.oltean@nxp.com
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 4:32 PM Vladimir Oltean vladimir.oltean@nxp.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 01:50:44PM +0800, Bin Meng wrote:
set_promisc() call accepts the parameter of a bool type. Make it clear by using true instead of 1.
Signed-off-by: Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com
net/dsa-uclass.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/net/dsa-uclass.c b/net/dsa-uclass.c index 694664d81b..dcefec03f4 100644 --- a/net/dsa-uclass.c +++ b/net/dsa-uclass.c @@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ static int dsa_port_probe(struct udevice *pdev) struct eth_ops *eth_ops = eth_get_ops(master);
if (eth_ops->set_promisc)
eth_ops->set_promisc(master, 1);
eth_ops->set_promisc(master, true); return 0; }-- 2.25.1
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Oltean vladimir.oltean@nxp.com
Reviewed-by: Ramon Fried rfried.dev@gmail.com
On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 2:26 AM Ramon Fried rfried.dev@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 4:32 PM Vladimir Oltean vladimir.oltean@nxp.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 01:50:44PM +0800, Bin Meng wrote:
set_promisc() call accepts the parameter of a bool type. Make it clear by using true instead of 1.
Signed-off-by: Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com
net/dsa-uclass.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/net/dsa-uclass.c b/net/dsa-uclass.c index 694664d81b..dcefec03f4 100644 --- a/net/dsa-uclass.c +++ b/net/dsa-uclass.c @@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ static int dsa_port_probe(struct udevice *pdev) struct eth_ops *eth_ops = eth_get_ops(master);
if (eth_ops->set_promisc)
eth_ops->set_promisc(master, 1);
eth_ops->set_promisc(master, true); return 0; }-- 2.25.1
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Oltean vladimir.oltean@nxp.com
Reviewed-by: Ramon Fried rfried.dev@gmail.com
Ping for apply?
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 5:19 AM Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 2:26 AM Ramon Fried rfried.dev@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 4:32 PM Vladimir Oltean vladimir.oltean@nxp.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 01:50:44PM +0800, Bin Meng wrote:
set_promisc() call accepts the parameter of a bool type. Make it clear by using true instead of 1.
Signed-off-by: Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com
net/dsa-uclass.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/net/dsa-uclass.c b/net/dsa-uclass.c index 694664d81b..dcefec03f4 100644 --- a/net/dsa-uclass.c +++ b/net/dsa-uclass.c @@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ static int dsa_port_probe(struct udevice *pdev) struct eth_ops *eth_ops = eth_get_ops(master);
if (eth_ops->set_promisc)
eth_ops->set_promisc(master, 1);
eth_ops->set_promisc(master, true); return 0; }-- 2.25.1
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Oltean vladimir.oltean@nxp.com
Reviewed-by: Ramon Fried rfried.dev@gmail.com
Ping for apply?
I'll get to the patches today. thanks for waking me up :)
Bin, patches don't apply cleanly. can you rebase ?
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 7:53 AM Ramon Fried rfried.dev@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 5:19 AM Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 2:26 AM Ramon Fried rfried.dev@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 4:32 PM Vladimir Oltean vladimir.oltean@nxp.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 01:50:44PM +0800, Bin Meng wrote:
set_promisc() call accepts the parameter of a bool type. Make it clear by using true instead of 1.
Signed-off-by: Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com
net/dsa-uclass.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/net/dsa-uclass.c b/net/dsa-uclass.c index 694664d81b..dcefec03f4 100644 --- a/net/dsa-uclass.c +++ b/net/dsa-uclass.c @@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ static int dsa_port_probe(struct udevice *pdev) struct eth_ops *eth_ops = eth_get_ops(master);
if (eth_ops->set_promisc)
eth_ops->set_promisc(master, 1);
eth_ops->set_promisc(master, true); return 0; }-- 2.25.1
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Oltean vladimir.oltean@nxp.com
Reviewed-by: Ramon Fried rfried.dev@gmail.com
Ping for apply?
I'll get to the patches today. thanks for waking me up :)
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 09:41:02PM +0300, Ramon Fried wrote:
Bin, patches don't apply cleanly. can you rebase ?
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 7:53 AM Ramon Fried rfried.dev@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 5:19 AM Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 2:26 AM Ramon Fried rfried.dev@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 4:32 PM Vladimir Oltean vladimir.oltean@nxp.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 01:50:44PM +0800, Bin Meng wrote:
set_promisc() call accepts the parameter of a bool type. Make it clear by using true instead of 1.
Signed-off-by: Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com
net/dsa-uclass.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/net/dsa-uclass.c b/net/dsa-uclass.c index 694664d81b..dcefec03f4 100644 --- a/net/dsa-uclass.c +++ b/net/dsa-uclass.c @@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ static int dsa_port_probe(struct udevice *pdev) struct eth_ops *eth_ops = eth_get_ops(master);
if (eth_ops->set_promisc)
eth_ops->set_promisc(master, 1);
eth_ops->set_promisc(master, true); return 0; }-- 2.25.1
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Oltean vladimir.oltean@nxp.com
Reviewed-by: Ramon Fried rfried.dev@gmail.com
Ping for apply?
I'll get to the patches today. thanks for waking me up :)
Why don't you apply patches immediately after reviewing them?
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 10:29 PM Vladimir Oltean vladimir.oltean@nxp.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 09:41:02PM +0300, Ramon Fried wrote:
Bin, patches don't apply cleanly. can you rebase ?
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 7:53 AM Ramon Fried rfried.dev@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 5:19 AM Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 2:26 AM Ramon Fried rfried.dev@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 4:32 PM Vladimir Oltean vladimir.oltean@nxp.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 01:50:44PM +0800, Bin Meng wrote: > set_promisc() call accepts the parameter of a bool type. Make it > clear by using true instead of 1. > > Signed-off-by: Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com > --- > > net/dsa-uclass.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/net/dsa-uclass.c b/net/dsa-uclass.c > index 694664d81b..dcefec03f4 100644 > --- a/net/dsa-uclass.c > +++ b/net/dsa-uclass.c > @@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ static int dsa_port_probe(struct udevice *pdev) > struct eth_ops *eth_ops = eth_get_ops(master); > > if (eth_ops->set_promisc) > - eth_ops->set_promisc(master, 1); > + eth_ops->set_promisc(master, true); > > return 0; > } > -- > 2.25.1 >
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Oltean vladimir.oltean@nxp.com
Reviewed-by: Ramon Fried rfried.dev@gmail.com
Ping for apply?
I'll get to the patches today. thanks for waking me up :)
Why don't you apply patches immediately after reviewing them?
It wouldn't make a difference. you were all working on the same file in code, If I would have applied bin's patches before yours, then you would need to rebase. simple as that. Also the time when I'm applying and when I'm reviewing is also meaningless because this problem would occur anyway.
Hi Ramon,
On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 9:31 PM Ramon Fried rfried.dev@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 10:29 PM Vladimir Oltean vladimir.oltean@nxp.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 09:41:02PM +0300, Ramon Fried wrote:
Bin, patches don't apply cleanly. can you rebase ?
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 7:53 AM Ramon Fried rfried.dev@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 5:19 AM Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 2:26 AM Ramon Fried rfried.dev@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 4:32 PM Vladimir Oltean vladimir.oltean@nxp.com wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 01:50:44PM +0800, Bin Meng wrote: > > set_promisc() call accepts the parameter of a bool type. Make it > > clear by using true instead of 1. > > > > Signed-off-by: Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com > > --- > > > > net/dsa-uclass.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/net/dsa-uclass.c b/net/dsa-uclass.c > > index 694664d81b..dcefec03f4 100644 > > --- a/net/dsa-uclass.c > > +++ b/net/dsa-uclass.c > > @@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ static int dsa_port_probe(struct udevice *pdev) > > struct eth_ops *eth_ops = eth_get_ops(master); > > > > if (eth_ops->set_promisc) > > - eth_ops->set_promisc(master, 1); > > + eth_ops->set_promisc(master, true); > > > > return 0; > > } > > -- > > 2.25.1 > > > > Reviewed-by: Vladimir Oltean vladimir.oltean@nxp.com Reviewed-by: Ramon Fried rfried.dev@gmail.com
Ping for apply?
I'll get to the patches today. thanks for waking me up :)
Why don't you apply patches immediately after reviewing them?
It wouldn't make a difference. you were all working on the same file in code, If I would have applied bin's patches before yours, then you would need to rebase. simple as that. Also the time when I'm applying and when I'm reviewing is also meaningless because this problem would occur anyway.
Please let me know which branch I should rebase on, so that I can send v2.
Regards, Bin
On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 4:37 PM Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Ramon,
On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 9:31 PM Ramon Fried rfried.dev@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 10:29 PM Vladimir Oltean vladimir.oltean@nxp.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 09:41:02PM +0300, Ramon Fried wrote:
Bin, patches don't apply cleanly. can you rebase ?
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 7:53 AM Ramon Fried rfried.dev@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 5:19 AM Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 2:26 AM Ramon Fried rfried.dev@gmail.com wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 4:32 PM Vladimir Oltean vladimir.oltean@nxp.com wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 01:50:44PM +0800, Bin Meng wrote: > > > set_promisc() call accepts the parameter of a bool type. Make it > > > clear by using true instead of 1. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com > > > --- > > > > > > net/dsa-uclass.c | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/net/dsa-uclass.c b/net/dsa-uclass.c > > > index 694664d81b..dcefec03f4 100644 > > > --- a/net/dsa-uclass.c > > > +++ b/net/dsa-uclass.c > > > @@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ static int dsa_port_probe(struct udevice *pdev) > > > struct eth_ops *eth_ops = eth_get_ops(master); > > > > > > if (eth_ops->set_promisc) > > > - eth_ops->set_promisc(master, 1); > > > + eth_ops->set_promisc(master, true); > > > > > > return 0; > > > } > > > -- > > > 2.25.1 > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Vladimir Oltean vladimir.oltean@nxp.com > Reviewed-by: Ramon Fried rfried.dev@gmail.com
Ping for apply?
I'll get to the patches today. thanks for waking me up :)
Why don't you apply patches immediately after reviewing them?
It wouldn't make a difference. you were all working on the same file in code, If I would have applied bin's patches before yours, then you would need to rebase. simple as that. Also the time when I'm applying and when I'm reviewing is also meaningless because this problem would occur anyway.
Please let me know which branch I should rebase on, so that I can send v2.
Regards, Bin
u-boot-net/next
On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 04:31:48PM +0300, Ramon Fried wrote:
Ping for apply?
I'll get to the patches today. thanks for waking me up :)
Why don't you apply patches immediately after reviewing them?
It wouldn't make a difference. you were all working on the same file in code, If I would have applied bin's patches before yours, then you would need to rebase. simple as that. Also the time when I'm applying and when I'm reviewing is also meaningless because this problem would occur anyway.
I know, I was reacting to the 'thanks for waking me up' part. Honestly I don't see the point of going through some patches, marking them as reviewed, then waiting for 2 more weeks to apply them (or even more in other cases). It slows down the process for a reason that I can't see.
Maybe the thinking is along the lines of "I won't apply patches that haven't marinated for long enough". But my patches (the ones conflicting with Bin's) still had build warnings even after marinating for close to one month (fixes for which I've sent just now). During that time, I had also piled up a few non-critical fixes to those patches, but I wasn't going to modify the patch set already in flight anyway, for fear of waiting again for who knows how long. Incremental fixups are fine and surely are a valid way of doing development too, so that argument kinda falls off the table. What's left?
On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 12:04 AM Vladimir Oltean vladimir.oltean@nxp.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 04:31:48PM +0300, Ramon Fried wrote:
Ping for apply?
I'll get to the patches today. thanks for waking me up :)
Why don't you apply patches immediately after reviewing them?
It wouldn't make a difference. you were all working on the same file in code, If I would have applied bin's patches before yours, then you would need to rebase. simple as that. Also the time when I'm applying and when I'm reviewing is also meaningless because this problem would occur anyway.
I know, I was reacting to the 'thanks for waking me up' part. Honestly I don't see the point of going through some patches, marking them as reviewed, then waiting for 2 more weeks to apply them (or even more in other cases). It slows down the process for a reason that I can't see.
Maybe the thinking is along the lines of "I won't apply patches that haven't marinated for long enough". But my patches (the ones conflicting with Bin's) still had build warnings even after marinating for close to one month (fixes for which I've sent just now). During that time, I had also piled up a few non-critical fixes to those patches, but I wasn't going to modify the patch set already in flight anyway, for fear of waiting again for who knows how long. Incremental fixups are fine and surely are a valid way of doing development too, so that argument kinda falls off the table. What's left?
I do let patches marinate for a while, to give other people the opportunity to review, test and comment. After a few weeks, when the merge window is open, I pick-up all the patches and apply them in turn. That's my process, and I don't think there's anything wrong with it.
If you have a fix to a patch you already got reviewed-by, send the patch again, and add reviewed-by. That's the way it should work.
participants (3)
-
Bin Meng -
Ramon Fried -
Vladimir Oltean