Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Clean up dead code in cmd_parser

From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
To: Christos Gkekas <chris.gekas@gmail.com>
Cc: fred gao <fred.gao@intel.com>,
	intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
	Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
	intel-gvt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Clean up dead code in cmd_parser
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:25:31 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87vajekzh0.fsf@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171016190218.GB2656@inspiron>

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, Christos Gkekas <chris.gekas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16/10/17 12:08:19 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Christos Gkekas <chris.gekas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Delete variables 'gma_bottom' that are set but never used.
>> 
>> Please use common sense in choosing the mailing lists and maintainers
>> you send patches to. In this case, intel-gvt-dev would have been
>> sufficient, with intel-gfx more than enough. Including Dave or dri-devel
>> or LKML is excessive. Arguably including Joonas, Rodrigo and myself is
>> also too much.
>> 
>> Please at least put it in context. This is a non-functional change
>> removing some dead code, not an urgent fix to some hair rising jaw
>> dropping bug.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Jani.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
>
> Hi Jani,
>
> Thanks for your feedback and sorry for any inconvenience caused.

Don't worry about it, I'm just trying to help you out here. :)

> I was trying to follow the good patch practices outlined in the link
> below and used the get_maintainer.pl script to identify who to send the
> patches to. I am sorry but I have no idea of who-is-who within intel and
> who would be the best person or list to contact. Also intel-gvt-dev is a
> members-only list.
>
> https://kernelnewbies.org/FirstKernelPatch#head-dc6a8aa0be0d0e8ed9dc03726d0b5a1fb0f65e1f

Too bad the page fails to mention axing off excessive recipients
typically returned by get_maintainer.pl. I wish the script had saner
defaults.

> Regarding your second point, I believe the title of this patch is pretty
> clear. Dead code is _dead_ and thus by definition not a functional
> change or bug fix. There was nothing in my email to indicate this is an
> 'urgent fix to some hair rising jaw dropping bug'. I am not sure what is
> the source of confusion?

There was no confusion in the title or commit message. I tried to say,
trim the number of recipients also based on the urgency of the
patch. Cc: the world if it's super urgent and important. Smaller
distribution is sufficient for cleanups.

BR,
Jani.

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx