Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1330457 > unrolled thread

Re: [RFC][PATCH] usb: gadget: u_ether: Add workqueue as bottom half handler for rx data path

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [RFC][PATCH] usb: gadget: u_ether: Add workqueue as bottom half  handler for rx data path Amit Pundir <amit.pundir@linaro.org> - 2016-02-09 17:50 +0100
    Re: [RFC][PATCH] usb: gadget: u_ether: Add workqueue as bottom half  handler for rx data path Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2016-02-09 19:30 +0100

#1330457 — Re: [RFC][PATCH] usb: gadget: u_ether: Add workqueue as bottom half handler for rx data path

On 9 February 2016 at 04:50, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 02:07:02AM +0530, Amit Pundir wrote:
>> Please ignore this one too. I should have build tested these patches
>> individually and not in particular series. I'll resend this patch.
>
> Send them in a numbered series so we know what order they have to be
> applied in.

Thanks I'll send them in a numbered series again. Since the patch
series didn't have much in common(feature wise), I changed my mind
right at the last moment to send them individually but that didn't go
well.

>
> And I always ignore RFC patches, if you can't be confident enough in
> submitting it for inclusion, why should we care?  :)

Yes I got your point. I was not intending to submit it yet, but hoping
to get any early feedback or objections from maintainers.

>
> You have of course tested these, right?

I have tested some of it for regressions, though not on the latest
kernel, but I will go through and re-test what I can. As I said I was
mainly just hoping for early maintainer feedback here.

Thank you for the suggestions and feedback Greg.

Regards,
Amit Pundir

>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1330570

On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 10:17:46PM +0530, Amit Pundir wrote:
> On 9 February 2016 at 04:50, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 02:07:02AM +0530, Amit Pundir wrote:
> >> Please ignore this one too. I should have build tested these patches
> >> individually and not in particular series. I'll resend this patch.
> >
> > Send them in a numbered series so we know what order they have to be
> > applied in.
> 
> Thanks I'll send them in a numbered series again. Since the patch
> series didn't have much in common(feature wise), I changed my mind
> right at the last moment to send them individually but that didn't go
> well.
> 
> >
> > And I always ignore RFC patches, if you can't be confident enough in
> > submitting it for inclusion, why should we care?  :)
> 
> Yes I got your point. I was not intending to submit it yet, but hoping
> to get any early feedback or objections from maintainers.

Again, if you don't care enough to think it is submittable, why should
we?  :)

Don't expect us to do your review and analysis work for you.

thanks,

greg k-h

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web