[PATCH v7 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1

Catalin Marinas
2015-01-16T10:10:34Z

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 queued up
> > > > for v3.20?
> >
> > > Before you even ask for this, please look at the patches and realise
> > > that there is a complete lack of Reviewed-by tags on the code (well,
> > > apart from trivial Kconfig changes). In addition, the series touches on
> > > other subsystems like clocksource, irqchip, acpi and I don't see any
> > > acks from the corresponding maintainers. So even if I wanted to merge
> > > 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 statement
> >
> > There's probably a bit of a process problem here - these patches are all
> > being posted as part of big and apparently controversial threads with
> > 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 directly
> > 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 affected
> subsystem.

Indeed, keeping the series as one thread is better. Apart from a
slightly less misleading subject, I suggest Hanjun that he passes each
patch via get_maintainer.pl and adds the corresponding Cc: lines to the
commit log. I think that's a clearer way keep track of who needs to
ack/review the patches.

--
Catalin