Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > There was a v9 of this series [*1*], which hasn't been picked up yet. > Was that intentional, or an oversight? ;-) Yes, I often miss patches that are buried in other discussions, but this time, it was quite deliberate. I saw comments that pointed out at least one thing that needs to be fixed before the series can move forward, so I skipped that iteration, anticipating another round of update. Also, I was waiting for [*3*] to be answered. > I left some comments on that iteration. Some were just style nits, > but I think at least [*2*] should be addressed before we merge this > down to master, not sure if any of my other comments apply to v8 as > well. I'm happy to send fixup patches, or a patches on top of > this series for that and my other comments, should they apply to v8, > or wait for Paul-Sebastian to send a re-roll. What do you prefer? The ideal from my point of view is to see responses to your comments in the original thread (which is about 1300 messages ago in the list archive by now) by Paul-Sebastian, possibly responded by you and/or others, resulting in a concensus on what the right update for the patches should be, finally followed by v10, which hopefully would be the final one. > [*1*]: <cover.1537913094.git.ungureanupaulsebastian@xxxxxxxxx> > [*2*]: <20180930174848.GE2253@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [*3*] <xmqq8t3oksve.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
