RE: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] idpf: Replace use of system_unbound_wq with system_dfl_wq

[Salin, Samuel]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Intel-wired-lan <intel-wired-lan-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of
> Jakub Kicinski
> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2026 12:41 PM
> To: Nguyen, Anthony L <anthony.l.nguyen@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Kitszel, Przemyslaw <przemyslaw.kitszel@xxxxxxxxx>; intel-wired-
> lan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@xxxxxxx>; David S . Miller
> <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Eric Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx>; Paolo
> Abeni <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] idpf: Replace use of
> system_unbound_wq with system_dfl_wq
> 
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2026 09:58:29 -0700 Tony Nguyen wrote:
> > On 3/14/2026 9:10 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > On Fri, 13 Mar 2026 17:08:57 +0100 Przemek Kitszel wrote:
> > >> Reviewed-by: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Process question - even tho you are also a maintainer I only read
> > > Tony's tags as "please apply directly". LMK if that's right, I'll
> > > try to remember / make a note..
> >
> > I talked to Przemek about this a little this morning. Since the
> > Reviewed-by tag is used more prevalently in our process, perhaps an
> > Acked-by could mean take this directly and the Reviewed-by keeps the
> > same process of going through IWL. Other thought would be to
> > explicitly ask/state for it to get taken directly. Open to other ideas
> > as well if there's something else you'd prefer.
> 
> Sounds complicated :S Let me continue ignoring Przemek's tags for the
> purpose of direct application. I guess it's more about who sends the PRs than
> who is a maintainer. If you send PRs I naturally never see your review tags, as
> the patches will eventually come out with your SoB.

Tested-by: Samuel Salin <Samuel.salin@xxxxxxxxx>