Hi, On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 05:49:20AM -0700, Soumya Negi wrote: > Hi Julia, > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 09:51:27AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 12 Oct 2023, Soumya Negi wrote: > > > > > Hi Dan, > > > > For these ones, the name is too generic. probably the right thing is > > > > to just get rid of them completely and call spin_lock/unlock_irq() > > > > directly. > > > > > > I understand that there should be 2 different patches, one for the > > > macro-to-function rewrites & one for replacing the scsi lock/unlock macros with > > > direct spinlock calls. But, should these be in a patchset(they are vaguely > > > related since the patches together would get rid of the checkpatch warnings)? > > > I'm not sure. > > > > Patch set, since they affect the same file. Otherwise, Greg doesn't know > > in what order to apply them. > > Thank you for explaining each point. I'm sending over the patch set for > review in a new email thread. My last patch in the set didn't go through. THe error message is "multiple In-Reply-To headers. To reduce the amount of spam sent to Gmail, this message has been blocked." I used the --thread=shallow flag with git format-patch. Should I try resend the entire patch set again without the flag? Or is there any way to send the remaining patch by itself? Thanks, Soumya > - Soumya
