From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S964858AbcBISXu (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 9 Feb 2016 13:23:50 -0500
Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:33925 "EHLO
	mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S932670AbcBISXt (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 9 Feb 2016 13:23:49 -0500
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 10:23:48 -0800
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Amit Pundir <amit.pundir@linaro.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
        Badhri Jagan Sridharan <Badhri@google.com>,
        Felipe Balbi <balbi@kernel.org>,
        Mike Looijmans <mike.looijmans@topic.nl>,
        Robert Baldyga <r.baldyga@samsung.com>,
        Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@android.com>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
        Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] usb: gadget: u_ether: Add workqueue as bottom half
 handler for rx data path
Message-ID: <20160209182348.GE31787@kroah.com>
References: <1454962276-6023-1-git-send-email-amit.pundir@linaro.org>
 <CAMi1Hd00EC3rjfkEsxxEaiWz4bzNiCM3Fa8t_PqF_czn7WAG4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160208232004.GC19380@kroah.com>
 <CAMi1Hd2+i1E_7i0hkvWPtm74abo-_NP7KnnRnMzMkZJBiV6Jsg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMi1Hd2+i1E_7i0hkvWPtm74abo-_NP7KnnRnMzMkZJBiV6Jsg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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