On 7 February 2011 16:50, Christophe Lyon <christophe.l...@st.com> wrote: > On 07.02.2011 17:08, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 31 January 2011 18:06, <christophe.l...@st.com> wrote: >>> From: Christophe Lyon <christophe.l...@st.com> >>> >>> Handle unsigned variant of VQ(R)SHRN instructions. >> >> This patch appears to be modifying a section of code >> that was already patched by 2/8 in this series. That's >> too confusing to review -- please combine them into >> one patch. >> > > That's because I borrowed patch 2/8 from your meego tree. > It was incomplete, but as I preferred to keep it as-is, I > completed it in a separate patch. > > From your other comments it looks like I'd have had better ignore > the patches from Meego and rewrite the patches on my own ;-)
Well, you shouldn't ignore them, but part of the process of getting those patches into upstream is cleaning them up: testing whether they work, adding the cases where they don't, providing better commit messages, splitting and combining them so that each patch submitted upstream is a single easy to review logical change, and so on. (It's exactly because this isn't a totally trivial process that there's still a queue of non-upstreamed patches in that tree.) -- PMM
