[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKMK7uGBWwbuSr7k83w0JAQ9bUKYvreYCJpBwpEqcUe3DZVrrQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 23:08:40 +0200
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
DRI Development <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>,
Shaohua Li <shli@...com>,
Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Joseph Qi <joseph.qi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/12] blk: use for_each_if
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 10:06 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 01:31:51PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> I don't think there's a git easy way of sending it out outside of
>> just ensuring that everybody is CC'ed on everything. I don't mind
>> that at all. I don't subscribe to lkml, and the patches weren't
>> sent to linux-block. Hence all I see is this stand-alone patch,
>> and logic would dictate that it's stand-alone (but it isn't).
Hm yeah I forgot to add linux-block. But others where there's no
dedicated list (or get_maintainers.pl didn't have one) also complained
about not getting Cc'ed, and I can't Cc everyone for sweeping changes.
> What I sometimes do is including a short blurb on each patch giving
> the overview and action hints (e.g. this is part of patchset doing XYZ
> and should be routed such and such). It's a bit redundant but has
> worked pretty well for patchsets with dependenat & sweeping changes.
Yeah I guess I can just copypaste/summarize patch 1 to all the
subsequent patches, sounds like the best option.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
Powered by blists - more mailing lists