From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ming Lei Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] usbnet: support runtime PM triggered by link change Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:44:49 +0800 Message-ID: References: <87r4pxumdd.fsf@nemi.mork.no> <20120920.170227.258356702969458329.davem@davemloft.net> <1703568.mhE1zQzG7o@linux-lqwf.site> <20120920.171610.1120043891672310370.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: oliver@neukum.org, bjorn@mork.no, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, finik@ti.com, rjw@sisk.pl, stern@rowland.harvard.edu, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]:51172 "EHLO youngberry.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753090Ab2IUBov (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Sep 2012 21:44:51 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20120920.171610.1120043891672310370.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 5:16 AM, David Miller wrote: > From: Oliver Neukum > Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 23:04:38 +0200 > >> On Thursday 20 September 2012 17:02:27 David Miller wrote: >>> >>> There seems to be some discussion about the legitimacy of doing things >>> this way, and in any event the patches were an RFC. >>> >>> Please resubmit as a non-RFC once all the issues have been worked >>> out, if appropriate. >> >> Just to make this clear, I'd like to state that the discussion involved >> only the third, last patch in the series. The first two are fine and make >> sense by themselves. > > I want changes in those, see my replies. No problem, I will send out -v2 of the first two patches later. thanks, -- Ming Lei