From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hanjun Guo Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 14:36:11 +0800 Message-ID: <54BB545B.5060800@linaro.org> References: <1421247905-3749-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <20150115182346.GE2329@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20150115190220.GF3043@sirena.org.uk> <20150115200437.GF24989@titan.lakedaemon.net> <20150116101034.GC13634@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from mail-pd0-f176.google.com ([209.85.192.176]:36130 "EHLO mail-pd0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751171AbbARGgW (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Jan 2015 01:36:22 -0500 Received: by mail-pd0-f176.google.com with SMTP id r10so30421942pdi.7 for ; Sat, 17 Jan 2015 22:36:22 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20150116101034.GC13634@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Catalin Marinas , Jason Cooper Cc: Mark Brown , "grant.likely@linaro.org" , Will Deacon , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Olof Johansson , Arnd Bergmann , Mark Rutland , Lorenzo Pieralisi , "graeme.gregory@linaro.org" , Sudeep Holla , "jcm@redhat.com" , Marc Zyngier , Bjorn Helgaas , Rob Herring , Robert Richter , Randy Dunlap , Charles Garcia-Tobin , "phoenix.liyi@huawei.com" , Timur Tabi , "suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com" , Yijing Wang , ACPI On 2015=E5=B9=B401=E6=9C=8816=E6=97=A5 18:10, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 08:04:37PM +0000, Jason Cooper wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 07:02:20PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: >>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 06:23:47PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote: >>>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 04:26:20PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote: >>> >>>>> I'll get right to the point: Can we please have this series queue= d up >>>>> for v3.20? >>> >>>> Before you even ask for this, please look at the patches and reali= se >>>> that there is a complete lack of Reviewed-by tags on the code (wel= l, >>>> apart from trivial Kconfig changes). In addition, the series touch= es on >>>> other subsystems like clocksource, irqchip, acpi and I don't see a= ny >>>> acks from the corresponding maintainers. So even if I wanted to me= rge >>>> the series, there is no way it can be done without additional >>>> reviews/acks. On the document (last patch), I'd like to see a stat= ement >>> >>> There's probably a bit of a process problem here - these patches ar= e all >>> being posted as part of big and apparently controversial threads wi= th >>> subject lines in the form "ARM / ACPI:" so people could be forgiven= for >>> just not even reading the e-mails enough to notice changes to their >>> subsystems. Is it worth posting those patches separately more dire= ctly >>> to the relevant maintainers? >> >> I think it's beneficial to post the entire series as one thread, but= to >> change the subject line of each patch to adequately reflect the affe= cted >> subsystem. > > Indeed, keeping the series as one thread is better. Apart from a > slightly less misleading subject, I suggest Hanjun that he passes eac= h > patch via get_maintainer.pl and adds the corresponding Cc: lines to t= he > commit log. I think that's a clearer way keep track of who needs to > ack/review the patches. I already checked all the patches with get_maintainer.pl, and CC the=20 maintainers in the CC list, I will add the corresponding Cc: lines in next version. Thanks Hanjun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html