[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200722175247.GA1293794@bjorn-Precision-5520>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 12:52:47 -0500
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To: Vaibhav Gupta <vaibhavgupta40@...il.com>
Cc: Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@....com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn@...gaas.com>,
Vaibhav Gupta <vaibhav.varodek@...il.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Joshua Morris <josh.h.morris@...ibm.com>,
Philip Kelleher <pjk1939@...ux.ibm.com>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org"
<linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>,
Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] skd: use generic power management
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 12:39:39PM +0530, Vaibhav Gupta wrote:
> Okay. I will improve on it. Just inform me after testing that if any other
> changes are required. I guess [PATCH 1/3] and [PATCH 2/3] are okay, so I will
> only send v3 of [PATCH 3/3] after suggested changes.
FWIW, there's a recent conversation on users@...ux.kernel.org about
updating individual patches in a series (sorry, can't find a link to
it). But the gist of it was that posting only [v3 3/3] leads to
confusion because
- we can't tell whether [v3 1/3] and [v3 2/3] got lost en-route, and
- collecting things from v2 and v3 is more work for the maintainer.
Bottom line: repost the whole series, even if some patches haven't
changed.
Bjorn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists