Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-16414-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
From: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
To: Alex Shi <seakeel@gmail.com>
Cc: alexs@kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Peter Zijlstra
 <peterz@infradead.org>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>, Vincent
 Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>, Dietmar Eggemann
 <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Ben
 Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Daniel Bristot
 de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 curuwang@tencent.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/tracing: correct the task blocking state
In-Reply-To: <CAJy-Ammtn1Asw98fnB28ym-FF8Wafc=p9Nv_dDfY1pL3V8bCQA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20240102073351.1527503-1-alexs@kernel.org>
 <xhsmhplykjawj.mognet@vschneid-thinkpadt14sgen2i.remote.csb>
 <CAJy-Am=R=gRFqSdGjXaMqq7Yetpp-4=bLtnP-87GepN4zff5Tg@mail.gmail.com>
 <xhsmhjzork8x5.mognet@vschneid-thinkpadt14sgen2i.remote.csb>
 <CAJy-AmkG+6jZCGFBnqA_33NtBBq_hjemqkPCbZX2Jty0KWQE+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <xhsmhbka2jzaj.mognet@vschneid-thinkpadt14sgen2i.remote.csb>
 <CAJy-Ammtn1Asw98fnB28ym-FF8Wafc=p9Nv_dDfY1pL3V8bCQA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2024 10:05:50 +0100
Message-ID: <xhsmh4jftjwnl.mognet@vschneid-thinkpadt14sgen2i.remote.csb>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 04/01/24 15:56, Alex Shi wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 9:56=E2=80=AFPM Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redha=
t.com> wrote:
>>
>> That's useful information - generally it's good to add the motivation fo=
r a
>> patch in the changelog.
>
> Thanks a lot for coaching, I changed the commit log in the v2 patch:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240103081042.1549189-1-alexs@kernel.org/
> Btw, which way is usual prefered, send v2 patch in a separate thread
> or add '--in-reply-to' to follow this thread?
>

New threads are usually better, it makes it clear that it is a new version
of the patch and not just a reply to the previous version's
thread.

Reviewers/Maintainers can also jump more easily on the v(n+1) when it's a
separate thread, in case they missed / didn't have time to review the
previous version.

> Thanks
> Alex
>
>>
>> > Thanks!
>>