Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 22 Jul 2020 12:52:47 -0500
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To:     Vaibhav Gupta <vaibhavgupta40@gmail.com>
Cc:     Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@wdc.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn@helgaas.com>,
        Vaibhav Gupta <vaibhav.varodek@gmail.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Joshua Morris <josh.h.morris@us.ibm.com>,
        Philip Kelleher <pjk1939@linux.ibm.com>,
        "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org" 
        <linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] skd: use generic power management
Message-ID: <20200722175247.GA1293794@bjorn-Precision-5520>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200721070939.GB51743@gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 12:39:39PM +0530, Vaibhav Gupta wrote:
> Okay. I will improve on it. Just inform me after testing that if any other
> changes are required. I guess [PATCH 1/3] and [PATCH 2/3] are okay, so I will
> only send v3 of [PATCH 3/3] after suggested changes.

FWIW, there's a recent conversation on users@linux.kernel.org about
updating individual patches in a series (sorry, can't find a link to
it).  But the gist of it was that posting only [v3 3/3] leads to
confusion because

  - we can't tell whether [v3 1/3] and [v3 2/3] got lost en-route, and

  - collecting things from v2 and v3 is more work for the maintainer.

Bottom line: repost the whole series, even if some patches haven't
changed.

Bjorn