From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hanjun.guo@linaro.org (Hanjun Guo) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 14:36:11 +0800 Subject: [PATCH v7 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 In-Reply-To: <20150116101034.GC13634@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> 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> Message-ID: <54BB545B.5060800@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 2015?01?16? 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 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. I already checked all the patches with get_maintainer.pl, and CC the maintainers in the CC list, I will add the corresponding Cc: lines in next version. Thanks Hanjun