From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ECF8C31E40 for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 02:09:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 403152087E for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 02:09:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="key not found in DNS" (0-bit key) header.d=codeaurora.org header.i=@codeaurora.org header.b="JpGJ6BH6"; dkim=fail reason="key not found in DNS" (0-bit key) header.d=codeaurora.org header.i=@codeaurora.org header.b="d9AzQNld" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2392971AbfHCCIz (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Aug 2019 22:08:55 -0400 Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:56228 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2392893AbfHCCIy (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Aug 2019 22:08:54 -0400 Received: by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 446C8601D4; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 02:08:53 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=codeaurora.org; s=default; t=1564798133; bh=8eCdE5CLse5AxBS9/5Vd4hVuuYRfYTGAjFku21C9NXc=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=JpGJ6BH6+pVnl6ht9Gt/7ZI7SZfd4O8Pi35PUmDoBNXiByzgLioWh90P9vcUkVsCf bjCmSQv9WR0yGNT0C9Dh1Vx1gLbsFHUg/DzrgS6gNDygg40F4UzvYmJb0LyvyCThdN /ZEY85HXEbRwrOHPPzpAbaqjYgSW5kkKe2k4aDrs= Received: from potku.adurom.net (88-114-240-156.elisa-laajakaista.fi [88.114.240.156]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: kvalo@smtp.codeaurora.org) by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0ED096037C; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 02:08:49 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=codeaurora.org; s=default; t=1564798132; bh=8eCdE5CLse5AxBS9/5Vd4hVuuYRfYTGAjFku21C9NXc=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=d9AzQNld1G0C2ZZahJN7h8RjjSG5nq10wxS2hoXDTxngoDfW7Kpe6jG4GxmRLqc2l EiLjz0fF1gOSVlwgTAS2yZoe9yaxHXvJNDSyhja4/eX/+8VW4RFMPMMEQSOZdbxChF 4HMmoZH1NGWM+VrFPVSzTgQMV6ZhX/RpuENaaGRg= DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org 0ED096037C Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=codeaurora.org Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=kvalo@codeaurora.org From: Kalle Valo To: Brian Norris Cc: Amitkumar Karwar , Nishant Sarmukadam , Ganapathi Bhat , Xinming Hu , linux-wireless , Linux Kernel , Dmitry Torokhov , Jeffy Chen , Doug Anderson , Matthias Kaehlcke Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Revert "mwifiex: fix system hang problem after resume" References: <20170331202136.100342-1-briannorris@chromium.org> <20190803010641.GA22848@google.com> <875znfhv2b.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2019 05:08:47 +0300 In-Reply-To: (Brian Norris's message of "Fri, 2 Aug 2019 19:02:52 -0700") Message-ID: <871ry3hufk.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Brian Norris writes: >> Changing the patchwork state to RFC means that it's dropped and out of >> my radar. Also, if I see "RFC" in the subject I assume that's a patch >> which I should not apply by default. > > Ack. Well, there were some "RFCs" I sent recently that you *did* > apply, so I didn't really know what happens normally. True, I have sometimes applied RFC patches in case they look good enough and I do not want them to get lost (and this is a good example of RFC patches getting lost). But by default I drop RFC patches after a quick glance. >> > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 01:21:36PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote: > ... >> > FWIW, I got an Acked-by from Amit when he was still at Marvell. And >> > another Reviewed-by from Dmitry. This still applies. Should I resend? >> > (I'll do that if I don't hear a response within a few days.) >> >> This patch is from 2017 so better to resend, and without RFC markings. > > Yep, will do. Thanks. -- https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches