From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hanjun.guo@linaro.org (Hanjun Guo) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 15:24:15 +0800 Subject: [PATCH v7 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 In-Reply-To: <20150115203159.GG3043@sirena.org.uk> 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> <20150115203159.GG3043@sirena.org.uk> Message-ID: <54B8BC9F.3020106@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 2015?01?16? 04:31, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 03:04:37PM -0500, Jason Cooper wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 07:02:20PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > >>> 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. > > Just changing the subject lines to be more suitable would help, but OK, I will repost this patch set as you and Jason suggested soon. Thanks Hanjun