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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CGME20201117011611epcms2p22fb0315814144e94856a96014c376a04@epcms2p2>
 <20201117011611epcms2p22fb0315814144e94856a96014c376a04@epcms2p2>
 <20201117074207.GC3436@kozik-lap> <CAEx-X7epecwBYV7UYoesQ9+Q8ir+kjYGyysiyDtCa0BzKiCGtA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJKOXPdH49zOQ2caOvDDiZPkEptYiCjUmXw+O2dCC1tKHZgPag@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJKOXPdH49zOQ2caOvDDiZPkEptYiCjUmXw+O2dCC1tKHZgPag@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Bongsu Jeon <bs.jeon87@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 Nov 2020 21:52:45 +0900
Message-ID: <CAEx-X7eMXK5DuxEae2rbHaKOceUHNS3Ubx-2tpMET0ofSsy+pQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/3] nfc: s3fwrn5: Remove the max_payload
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
Cc:     Bongsu Jeon <bongsu.jeon@samsung.com>,
        Krzysztof Opasiak <k.opasiak@samsung.com>,
        "linux-nfc@lists.01.org" <linux-nfc@lists.01.org>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 5:39 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 at 09:14, Bongsu Jeon <bs.jeon87@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 2020-11-17 16:42 GMT+09:00, krzk@kernel.org <krzk@kernel.org>:
> > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 10:16:11AM +0900, Bongsu Jeon wrote:
> > >> max_payload is unused.
> > >
> > > Why did you resend the patch ignoring my review? I already provided you
> > > with a tag, so you should include it.
> > >
> > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Krzysztof
> > >
> >
> > Sorry about that. I included the tag.
>
> You need to reduce the rate of sending new patches. You sent v1. Then
> you sent again v1, which I reviewed. Then you send v2 without my
> review. So I provided a review. Then you sent again a v2 with my
> reviewed tags. So there are two v1 patches and two v2. Since I
> provided you the review tags for v2, no need to send v2 again. It
> confuses.
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof

Sorry to confuse you.
I made a mistake because I thought that you asked me
 to resend the patches with the new version(v2).
I think you intended that I need to version the patches and
describe changes when I update the patches next time.

Thanks a lot for reviewing my patches.