On Tue, 13 Sep 2022 23:04:02 +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote: >2022-09-13 1:14 GMT+09:00, Atte Heikkilä <atteh.mailbox@xxxxxxxxx>: >> >> This mailing list already has a v2 patch series. Please, reply to that one. >Okay, but please add cc me when you send the patch to the list. I sent the v2 patch to the mailing list an hour after the first one: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-cifs/20220911215542.104935-1-atteh.mailbox@xxxxxxxxx/ Please, let's have further discussion as replies to the v2 patch series and not this one. > >> As for your suggestion, I thought to keep the statements separate since the >> block with the IS_ENABLED() macro is optimized away when CONFIG_UNICODE is >> not set. I understand that the behavior is the same with your suggestion. >When CONFIG_UNICODE is not set, um is not checked in my suggestion. I didn't mean to imply that it was. >Please tell me why my suggestion is worse. if you are okay, I will >update it directly.(i.e. no need to send v3 patch). I didn't mean that your suggestion is worse. Feel free to update it directly if you'd like. >and please check the use of strncasecmp() in __caseless_lookup() also. I thought that the change to utf8_strncasecmp() would be out of place for this patch series. > >And I need to do full test for this patches, I think it will take >about two days. Please do not feel inclined to hurry, considering the mistake I managed to make in the the v1 patch series (this one you're replying to). >> >> Thank you. >>
