Re: [PATCH v13 00/11] Convert PWM period and duty cycle to u64

From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
To: Guru Das Srinagesh <gurus@codeaurora.org>
Cc: "Kate Stewart" <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>,
	linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org,
	"David Collins" <collinsd@codeaurora.org>,
	"Liam Girdwood" <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
	"David Airlie" <airlied@linux.ie>,
	"Michael Turquette" <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
	"Kamil Debski" <kamil@wypas.org>,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	"Chris Wilson" <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>,
	"Atish Patra" <atish.patra@wdc.com>,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
	"Fabio Estevam" <festevam@gmail.com>,
	linux-clk@vger.kernel.org,
	"Daniel Thompson" <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>,
	"Mauro Carvalho Chehab" <mchehab@kernel.org>,
	"Alexander Shiyan" <shc_work@mail.ru>,
	"Chen-Yu Tsai" <wens@csie.org>,
	"NXP Linux Team" <linux-imx@nxp.com>,
	"Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>,
	"Philipp Zabel" <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>,
	"Sascha Hauer" <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
	"Guenter Roeck" <linux@roeck-us.net>,
	linux-media@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 00/11] Convert PWM period and duty cycle to u64
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 07:43:03 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200424064303.GJ3612@dell> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200423215306.GA8670@codeaurora.org>

On Thu, 23 Apr 2020, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 12:48:57PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > What's the merge plan for this set?
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean. My assumption is that first all the patches
> need to get an Acked-by and only then will the series get applied by
> Thierry... Could Thierry or Uwe weigh in on this point please?
> 
> > FYI, it's better to send all patches to all parties.  That way
> > maintainers and interested persons can follow the discussion and
> > progress, or lack there of.
> 
> Something I noticed with adding all the various mailing lists to the CC
> list for this cover letter is that it is causing this cover letter email
> and all its replies to not be archived properly on spinics or lore -
> it's probably getting rejected by email filters somehow. Compare with
> v12 [1] where I'd pruned the list considerably as an experiment - that
> got archived correctly.
> 
> Any ideas on what might be going wrong? Once I fix this I can add all
> parties to all patches knowing that there would be no issues in mail
> archival.

A great deal of mailing lists contain numerous protections against
things like flooding and spamming.  One of those protections is a
check for "Too many recipients to the message".  Most of the time this
simply requires moderator intervention by way of review and approval,
but this ultimately depends on the ML's configuration.

The first thing to ascertain is why your recipients list is so large.
Have you added every reviewer, subsystem-maintainer, maintainer and
contributor suggested by get-maintainer.pl?  If so, consider pruning
that a little.  Contributors do not tend to care about subsequent
changes to a file.  As someone who receives a lot of patches, I tend
to get fed-up when receiving patches simply because I made a change X
years ago.  Stick to listed maintainers/reviewers in the first
instance and see how far that takes you.

If your recipients list is as succinct as reasonably possible, maybe
just accept that every version isn't going to be archived by every
ML.  It's still much more useful for the correct people to have
visibility into the set than for it to be archived multiple times.

> [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-pwm/msg12131.html
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Guru Das.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx