Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
In-Reply-To: <20180911184755.GA2562@kroah.com>
From:   "Remi Pommarel" <repk@triplefau.lt>
Date:   Wed, 12 Sep 2018 10:16:22 +0200
Cc:     "Jiri Slaby" <jslaby@suse.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "Alexander Viro" <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        "Kees Cook" <keescook@chromium.org>,
        "Elie Roudninski" <xademax@gmail.com>
To:     "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <3459-5b98cb80-1-49ed5900@198591000>
Subject: =?utf-8?q?Re=3A?==?utf-8?q?_=5BRFC?= PATCH =?utf-8?q?0=2F4=5D?= Add 
 specific vt input's key map
User-Agent: SOGoMail 3.2.10
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi,
 
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 08:47:55PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:  
> 
> Normally I do not review "RFC" patches as it implies the submitter does
> not think they are a valid solution.  How about resending them as if you
> think this is something ready to be merged?

I had used "RFC" here because I had one or two questions about the
implementation choices I made on those patches and not really on the
solution itself. So, yes, I don't mind sending another round of those
patches without RFC.

Thanks,

-- 
Remi