Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] mlxsw: spectrum_ptp: use PTP wide message type definitions

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 08:29:22PM +0100, Christian Eggers wrote:
> this was also not by intention. Vladimir found some files I missed in the
> first series. As the whole first series had already been reviewed at that time,
> I wasn't sure whether I am allowed to add further patches to it. Additionally
> I didn't concern that although my local build is successful, I should wait
> until the first series is applied...

When I said that, what I was thinking of (although it might have not
been clear) was that if you send further patches, you send them _after_
the initial series is merged.

Alternatively, it would have been just as valid to resend the entire
series, as a 3+3 patchset with a new revision (v3 -> v4), with review
tags collected from the first three, and the last 3 being completely
new. Jakub could have superseded v3 and applied v4.

The idea behind splicing N patches into a series is that they are
logically connected to one another. For example, a patch doesn't build
without another. You _could_ split logically-connected patches into
separate series and post them independently for review, as long as they
are build-time independent. If they aren't, well, what happens is
exactly what happened: various test robots will report build failures,
which from a maintainer's point of view inspires less confidence to
apply a patch as-is. I would not be surprised if Jakub asked you to
resend with no change at all, just to ensure that the patch series
passes build tests before merging it.