From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Guru Das Srinagesh Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 00/12] Convert PWM period and duty cycle to u64 Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 12:59:40 -0700 Message-ID: <20200331195939.GA25781@codeaurora.org> References: <20200321114703.GB4672@kadam> <20200330191506.GA29534@codeaurora.org> <20200330202636.njjo4savgzf3g6yx@holly.lan> <20200330210012.GA27611@codeaurora.org> <20200331134804.xxrjaestztcazalc@holly.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200331134804.xxrjaestztcazalc@holly.lan> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-riscv" Errors-To: linux-riscv-bounces+glpr-linux-riscv=m.gmane-mx.org@lists.infradead.org To: Daniel Thompson Cc: Kate Stewart , Daniel Vetter , linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, David Airlie , "Wesley W. Terpstra" , Michael Turquette , Joonas Lahtinen , Kamil Debski , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, Liam Girdwood , Atish Patra , Thierry Reding , Benjamin Gaignard , linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, Lee Jones , linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, Ville =?utf-8?B?U3lyasOkbMOk?= , Alexandre Torgue , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Axel Lin , Arnd Bergmann , Alexander Shiyan , Fabio Estevam List-Id: linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 02:48:04PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote: > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 02:00:12PM -0700, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 09:26:36PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 12:15:07PM -0700, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote: > > > > On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 02:47:03PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > > > This is a giant CC list. > > > > > > > > Yes, this is because I received feedback [1] on an earlier patchset > > > > directing me to add the reviewers of patches to the cover letter as > > > > well so that they get some context for the patch. > > > > ... > > > > [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-pwm/msg11735.html > > > > > > Strictly speaking I only asked for backlight maintainers to be Cc:ed. > > > I was fairly careful to be specific since I'm aware there are a variety > > > of differing habits when putting together the Cc: list for covering > > > letters. > > > > > > With the original patch header the purpose of the patch I was Cc:ed on > > > was impossible to determine without the covering letter. > > > > I suspect this might be the case for all the other reviewers as well - > > that they also would appreciate context for the specific patch they are > > being added to review. > > > > I wasn't entirely sure what the convention was, so I applied your > > suggestion to all the files. How do you suggest I handle this in my next > > patchset? I fully agree that such a large CC list does look really > > ungainly. > > IHMO there should not be a mechanical convention. Instead your goal > needs to be how to make it as easy as possible to review your patches. > > Think about it this way: Each person in the To: of a patch (and maybe > also Cc: depending on how you construct things) is a person you are > asking to review and comment on the patch. If that person will find it > easier to review the patch if they are included in the cover letter then > either they should be included or you should improve the patch > description of the patch itself (sometimes both). > > Either way it is about optimizing the patchset for readability. More > people read them than write them. Thank you for the explanation! I shall keep your suggestions in mind while sending out future patchsets. Thank you. Guru Das.