From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Thu, 20 Oct 2016 19:53:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:37090 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S23992279AbcJTRx3qjeDM (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Oct 2016 19:53:29 +0200 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 527CCC056791; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 17:53:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from potion (dhcp-1-100.brq.redhat.com [10.34.1.100]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with SMTP id u9KHrOtC013969; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 13:53:24 -0400 Received: by potion (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 20 Oct 2016 19:53:23 +0200 Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 19:53:23 +0200 From: Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= To: James Hogan Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org, Paolo Bonzini , Ralf Baechle , kvm@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: MIPS: Add missing uaccess.h include Message-ID: <20161020175323.GB8569@potion> References: <20161020131054.GF8573@potion> <20161020131630.GL7370@jhogan-linux.le.imgtec.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161020131630.GL7370@jhogan-linux.le.imgtec.org> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.26 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.32]); Thu, 20 Oct 2016 17:53:27 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 55524 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: rkrcmar@redhat.com Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: linux-mips X-List-ID: linux-mips List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: linux-mips 2016-10-20 14:16+0100, James Hogan: > BTW, generally speaking do you always prefer pull requests to have the > patches sent in reply to it, or only if they haven't already been posted > for review? I strongly prefer pull requests that include only patches that were already posted on the list and slightly prefer to omit the patch replies. At least for me, a patch in a pull request has a FYI status instead of a RFC status that a normal posting has. [I'd like if all patches in pull requests were already (re)viewed by interested parties, so merge discussions could be high level or focus on things that we learned while/after applying the patches, hence there would be little benefit from reposting patches to the mailing list.]