From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: MIPS: Add missing uaccess.h include Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 19:53:23 +0200 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 Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org, Paolo Bonzini , Ralf Baechle , kvm@vger.kernel.org To: James Hogan Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:50876 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752359AbcJTRx1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Oct 2016 13:53:27 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161020131630.GL7370@jhogan-linux.le.imgtec.org> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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.]