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:   Mon, 30 Aug 2021 14:18:10 -0500
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To:     Sergio =?iso-8859-1?Q?Migu=E9ns?= Iglesias <lonyelon@gmail.com>
Cc:     konrad.wilk@oracle.com, boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com,
        jgross@suse.com, sstabellini@kernel.org, bhelgaas@google.com,
        xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Sergio =?iso-8859-1?Q?Migu=E9ns?= Iglesias <sergio@lony.xyz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] xen/pcifront: Removed unnecessary __ref annotation
Message-ID: <20210830191810.GA13209@bjorn-Precision-5520>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20210830201426.g2vaxh6chqnprual@archlap>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 10:14:26PM +0200, Sergio Migu?ns Iglesias wrote:
> Thanks again for you answers!
> I am lerning a lot from your replys and I really appreciate it. Should I
> make a v3 patch and split that one into 2 different patches or would it
> be confusing?
> 
> I don't want to take more of your time with poor patches so I don't know
> if I should resend this one.

If it's already applied, it doesn't matter for this case.  But in this
situation I would generally post a v3 incorporating the feedback.  To
be respectful of reviewers' time, try to avoid posting more than one
or two revisions per week.  As long as you tag reposts appropriately
with v2, v3, etc (as you did), there's no confusion.

It's nice if you include a note about what changed between v1 and v2
in the cover letter or below the "---" line as was done here:

  https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/8f9a13ac-8ab1-15ac-06cb-c131b488a36f@siemens.com/