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:   Fri, 22 Oct 2021 09:01:48 +0200
From:   Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>
To:     Naveen Naidu <naveennaidu479@gmail.com>
Cc:     bhelgaas@google.com,
        linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        skhan@linuxfoundation.org,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>,
        Amey Narkhede <ameynarkhede03@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 18/25] PCI: pciehp: Use RESPONSE_IS_PCI_ERROR() to
 check read from hardware
Message-ID: <20211022070148.GB17656@wunner.de>
References: <cover.1634825082.git.naveennaidu479@gmail.com>
 <c21290fe02a7a342a8b93c692586b6a2b6cde9e0.1634825082.git.naveennaidu479@gmail.com>
 <20211021152253.pqc6xp3vnv5fpczj@theprophet>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20211021152253.pqc6xp3vnv5fpczj@theprophet>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 08:52:53PM +0530, Naveen Naidu wrote:
> Lukas, I have not added your Acked-by tag from the v1 [1] of the patch 
> series, since the RESPONSE_IS_PCI_ERROR macro definition slightly 
> changed. I hope this was the right thing to do.
[...]
> If that is not the case please let me know. But I am not sure what to
> do here? If RESPONSE_IS_PCI_ERROR does not fit here, should the right
> option would be to revert/remove this patch from the series?

My Acked-by still stands.  As for the macro name, I'm fine with
whatever Bjorn and the community settle on. :)

Thanks,

Lukas