From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16298C433EF for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 07:10:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EE456109F for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 07:10:53 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 9EE456109F Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=wunner.de Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lists.linuxfoundation.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6661180FF2; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 07:10:53 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n_xF2Rfl01mN; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 07:10:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.linuxfoundation.org (lf-lists.osuosl.org [140.211.9.56]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD3B580F3D; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 07:10:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lf-lists.osuosl.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87744C0020; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 07:10:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FD78C001E for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 07:10:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1B9060665 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 07:10:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RiD7mbvc1uuD for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 07:10:49 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:08:56 by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from bmailout2.hostsharing.net (bmailout2.hostsharing.net [IPv6:2a01:37:3000::53df:4ef0:0]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8EFA60638 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 07:10:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from h08.hostsharing.net (h08.hostsharing.net [83.223.95.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.hostsharing.net", Issuer "RapidSSL TLS DV RSA Mixed SHA256 2020 CA-1" (verified OK)) by bmailout2.hostsharing.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A42C028005312; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 09:01:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: by h08.hostsharing.net (Postfix, from userid 100393) id 979BF16E5C7; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 09:01:48 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 09:01:48 +0200 From: Lukas Wunner To: Naveen Naidu Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 18/25] PCI: pciehp: Use RESPONSE_IS_PCI_ERROR() to check read from hardware Message-ID: <20211022070148.GB17656@wunner.de> References: <20211021152253.pqc6xp3vnv5fpczj@theprophet> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20211021152253.pqc6xp3vnv5fpczj@theprophet> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Cc: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bhelgaas@google.com, linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-BeenThere: linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: linux-kernel-mentees-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org Sender: "Linux-kernel-mentees" On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 08:52:53PM +0530, Naveen Naidu wrote: > Lukas, I have not added your Acked-by tag from the v1 [1] of the patch > series, since the RESPONSE_IS_PCI_ERROR macro definition slightly > changed. I hope this was the right thing to do. [...] > If that is not the case please let me know. But I am not sure what to > do here? If RESPONSE_IS_PCI_ERROR does not fit here, should the right > option would be to revert/remove this patch from the series? My Acked-by still stands. As for the macro name, I'm fine with whatever Bjorn and the community settle on. :) Thanks, Lukas _______________________________________________ Linux-kernel-mentees mailing list Linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-kernel-mentees