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;
Date:   Wed, 5 Dec 2018 17:30:44 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Peter Rajnoha <prajnoha@redhat.com>
Cc:     rafael@kernel.org, jeyu@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        msekleta@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fix return code and improve feature check for
 synthetic uevents
Message-ID: <20181205163044.GB7185@kroah.com>
References: <20181205112745.12276-1-prajnoha@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181205112745.12276-1-prajnoha@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.0 (2018-11-25)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 12:27:43PM +0100, Peter Rajnoha wrote:
> Two small patches to aid handling of synthetic uevents back in userspace:
> 
>   - Return error code back to userspace on /sys/.../uevent file write
>     failure so userspace knows and it can act accordingly.
> 
>   - Add new 'kernel/uevent_features' sysfs file to make it possible for
>     userspace to check that the extended synthetic uevent arguments are
>     supported without relying on kernel version check only.
> 
> Peter Rajnoha (2):
>   kobject: return error code if writing /sys/.../uevent fails
>   kobject: add kernel/uevent_features sysfs file

Did you send this series twice?  Which one should I pay attention to?

confused,

greg k-h