From: Niklas Cassel <cassel@kernel.org>
To: "Hans Zhang" <18255117159@163.com>,
"Krzysztof Wilczyński" <kw@linux.com>
Cc: lpieralisi@kernel.org, bhelgaas@google.com, jingoohan1@gmail.com,
manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org, robh@kernel.org,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v2 0/3] Standardize link status check to return bool
Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 17:41:15 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <BF391DAD-7E2C-44C2-9BE7-C1F7A2946575@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d484701c-8a58-4249-a647-d7f06075f7b6@163.com>
On 13 May 2025 17:09:58 CEST, Hans Zhang <18255117159@163.com> wrote:
>
>
>On 2025/5/13 23:04, Krzysztof Wilczyński wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> [...]
>>> Sorry, this is also the first time I have done this. For other patches in
>>> the future, I will do this in the new version.
>>
>> See the following:
>>
>> - https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20250513145728.GA3513600@rocinante
>>
>> While I cannot speak for other maintainers, I am going to change the
>> approach to the "RESEND" patches that I used to personally have.
>>
>> But, if in doubt, it's always fine to send another version.
>>
>
>
>Dear Krzysztof,
>
>Ok. From now on, I will handle similar problems in the new version.
While I agree that it is always fine to send a new revision (which has picked up tags),
having the RESEND tag is gently informing that the series might have fell thorough the cracks.
This information might be lost/less obvious if simply sending a new revision (assuming that commit log and code is unchanged).
Kind regards,
Niklas
prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-05-13 15:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-05-10 16:07 Hans Zhang
2025-05-10 16:07 ` [RESEND PATCH v2 1/3] PCI: dwc: " Hans Zhang
2025-05-13 8:00 ` Niklas Cassel
2025-05-10 16:07 ` [RESEND PATCH v2 2/3] PCI: mobiveil: Refactor link status check Hans Zhang
2025-05-13 8:00 ` Niklas Cassel
2025-05-10 16:07 ` [RESEND PATCH v2 3/3] PCI: cadence: Simplify j721e " Hans Zhang
2025-05-13 8:01 ` Niklas Cassel
2025-05-13 9:33 ` [RESEND PATCH v2 0/3] Standardize link status check to return bool Manivannan Sadhasivam
2025-05-16 8:52 ` Niklas Cassel
2025-05-16 14:57 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2025-05-13 9:40 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2025-05-13 14:42 ` Hans Zhang
2025-05-13 10:21 ` Krzysztof Wilczyński
2025-05-13 13:39 ` Niklas Cassel
2025-05-13 14:57 ` Krzysztof Wilczyński
2025-05-13 14:47 ` Hans Zhang
2025-05-13 15:04 ` Krzysztof Wilczyński
2025-05-13 15:09 ` Hans Zhang
2025-05-13 15:41 ` Niklas Cassel [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=BF391DAD-7E2C-44C2-9BE7-C1F7A2946575@kernel.org \
--to=cassel@kernel.org \
--cc=18255117159@163.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=jingoohan1@gmail.com \
--cc=kw@linux.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lpieralisi@kernel.org \
--cc=manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®