From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D4EF2C9E
	for <linux-staging@lists.linux.dev>; Fri,  3 Dec 2021 14:14:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 394A6C53FC7;
	Fri,  3 Dec 2021 14:14:33 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org;
	s=korg; t=1638540873;
	bh=v59ThzrQR/E+1jWqDwNoI8yFOz1/2zQOK8rBUFsUf78=;
	h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From;
	b=EXwfjp8IaVILiahinc6Cg76eh0RncqnxmNtFczEj858OKdZBfHHdDuIa3hkwxf9j+
	 RedHdhVJyAj01SjTWy0ldmNPjz+5X7Wpq5/fNxF9uKEVyP0gqFO6Qvq8ChQMc+7quU
	 NxP6cvPflcs4B9HhQMTnli8Qd1SAEOlZnXe+EFFg=
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2021 15:14:31 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Cc: Martin Kaiser <martin@kaiser.cx>,
	Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net>,
	Phillip Potter <phil@philpotter.co.uk>,
	Michael Straube <straube.linux@gmail.com>,
	linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] staging: r8188eu: use a delayed worker for led updates
Message-ID: <YaomR72ytUd9jmAt@kroah.com>
References: <20211125162513.25039-1-martin@kaiser.cx>
 <20211126114135.18228-1-martin@kaiser.cx>
 <20211129110427.GQ6514@kadam>
Precedence: bulk
X-Mailing-List: linux-staging@lists.linux.dev
List-Id: <linux-staging.lists.linux.dev>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:linux-staging+subscribe@lists.linux.dev>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:linux-staging+unsubscribe@lists.linux.dev>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20211129110427.GQ6514@kadam>

On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 02:04:27PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> This was confusing becuase it should have been [PATCH 4/4 v2].  These
> days I think the prefered way is to just resend the whole series as a
> new thread.
> 
> Greg doesn't use patchwork, but these rules especially apply for
> subsystems which use patchwork.  People say that patchwork gets confused
> when people use the --in-reply-to option and I guess it's hard to
> apply individual patches in patchwork?  Anyway, just always start a new
> thread and resend everything.
> 
> Send a reply to the original thread to say "Don't apply this one, it has
> sleeping in atomic bugs", otherwise it might get applied by mistake.

I had already reverted that patch from my tree, so I would not have
applied it again :)

thanks,

greg k-h