[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54BB545B.5060800@linaro.org>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 14:36:11 +0800
From: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>
CC: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
"grant.likely@...aro.org" <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
"graeme.gregory@...aro.org" <graeme.gregory@...aro.org>,
Sudeep Holla <Sudeep.Holla@....com>,
"jcm@...hat.com" <jcm@...hat.com>,
Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@....com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Charles Garcia-Tobin <Charles.Garcia-Tobin@....com>,
"phoenix.liyi@...wei.com" <phoenix.liyi@...wei.com>,
Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>,
"suravee.suthikulpanit@....com" <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>,
Yijing Wang <wangyijing@...wei.com>,
ACPI Devel Mailing List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linaro-acpi <linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1
On 2015年01月16日 18:10, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 08:04:37PM +0000, Jason Cooper wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 07:02:20PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 06:23:47PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 04:26:20PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I'll get right to the point: Can we please have this series queued up
>>>>> for v3.20?
>>>
>>>> Before you even ask for this, please look at the patches and realise
>>>> that there is a complete lack of Reviewed-by tags on the code (well,
>>>> apart from trivial Kconfig changes). In addition, the series touches on
>>>> other subsystems like clocksource, irqchip, acpi and I don't see any
>>>> acks from the corresponding maintainers. So even if I wanted to merge
>>>> the series, there is no way it can be done without additional
>>>> reviews/acks. On the document (last patch), I'd like to see a statement
>>>
>>> There's probably a bit of a process problem here - these patches are all
>>> being posted as part of big and apparently controversial threads with
>>> subject lines in the form "ARM / ACPI:" so people could be forgiven for
>>> just not even reading the e-mails enough to notice changes to their
>>> subsystems. Is it worth posting those patches separately more directly
>>> to the relevant maintainers?
>>
>> I think it's beneficial to post the entire series as one thread, but to
>> change the subject line of each patch to adequately reflect the affected
>> subsystem.
>
> Indeed, keeping the series as one thread is better. Apart from a
> slightly less misleading subject, I suggest Hanjun that he passes each
> patch via get_maintainer.pl and adds the corresponding Cc: lines to the
> commit log. I think that's a clearer way keep track of who needs to
> ack/review the patches.
I already checked all the patches with get_maintainer.pl, and CC the
maintainers in the CC list, I will add the corresponding Cc: lines in
next version.
Thanks
Hanjun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists