[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250905-swipe-unstuck-dd7ad6e5466a@spud>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2025 16:28:43 +0100
From: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
To: Asuna <spriteovo@...il.com>
Cc: Jason Montleon <jmontleo@...hat.com>, Han Gao <rabenda.cn@...il.com>,
Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
Benno Lossin <lossin@...nel.org>,
Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>,
Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>,
Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, Alexandre Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr>,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <nick.desaulniers+lkml@...il.com>,
Bill Wendling <morbo@...gle.com>,
Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Matthew Maurer <mmaurer@...gle.com>, Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...omium.org>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>,
Jan Hendrik Farr <kernel@...rr.cc>,
Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] RISC-V: re-enable gcc + rust builds
On Fri, Sep 05, 2025 at 06:56:35AM +0800, Asuna wrote:
> > One thing - please don't send new versions
> > of patchsets in response to earlier versions or other threads. It
> > doesn't do you any favours with mailbox visibility.
>
> I apologize for this, I'm pretty much new to mailing lists, so I had
> followed the step "Explicit In-Reply-To headers" [1] in doc. For future
> patches I'll send them alone instead of replying to existing threads.
>
> [1]: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v6.9/process/submitting-patches.html#explicit-in-reply-to-headers
Ye I think this is mostly just misleading. You're better off providing a
lore link in the body of the mail than replying to some old thread. I
find that explicit in-reply-to stuff only really helpful to send a
single patch as part of a conversation where it's effectively an RFC.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists