Re: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: Parenthesize macro arguments

[Soumya Negi <soumya.negi97@gmail.com>]

Hi,

On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 05:49:20AM -0700, Soumya Negi wrote:
> Hi Julia,
> 
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 09:51:27AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, 12 Oct 2023, Soumya Negi wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi Dan,
> > > > For these ones, the name is too generic.  probably the right thing is
> > > > to just get rid of them completely and call spin_lock/unlock_irq()
> > > > directly.
> > >
> > > I understand that there should be 2 different patches, one for the
> > > macro-to-function rewrites & one for replacing the scsi lock/unlock macros with
> > > direct spinlock calls. But, should these be in a patchset(they are vaguely
> > > related since the patches together would get rid of the checkpatch warnings)?
> > > I'm not sure.
> > 
> > Patch set, since they affect the same file.  Otherwise, Greg doesn't know
> > in what order to apply them.
> 
> Thank you for explaining each point. I'm sending over the patch set for
> review in a new email thread.

My last patch in the set didn't go through. THe error message is "multiple In-Reply-To
headers. To reduce the amount of spam sent to Gmail, this message has
been blocked." I used the --thread=shallow flag with git format-patch.

Should I try resend the entire patch set again without the flag? Or is
there any way to send the remaining patch by itself?

Thanks,
Soumya
> - Soumya