From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lee Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 00/11] Convert PWM period and duty cycle to u64 Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 07:44:34 +0100 Message-ID: <20200427064434.GA3559@dell> References: <20200423114857.GG3612@dell> <20200423215306.GA8670@codeaurora.org> <20200424064303.GJ3612@dell> <20200424221422.GA31118@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200424221422.GA31118@codeaurora.org> 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: Guru Das Srinagesh Cc: Kate Stewart , linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, David Collins , Liam Girdwood , David Airlie , Michael Turquette , Joonas Lahtinen , Kamil Debski , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, Chris Wilson , Atish Patra , Thierry Reding , linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, Fabio Estevam , linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, Ville =?iso-8859-1?Q?Syrj=E4l=E4?= , Daniel Thompson , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Alexander Shiyan , Chen-Yu Tsai , NXP Linux Team , Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= List-Id: linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 24 Apr 2020, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote: > On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 07:43:03AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > 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. > > Thank you for the detailed reply. I did this in the first few patchsets > and then when a few patches didn't get any attention, expanded the > audience thus. Still, around 50% of the patches in this series remain > unreviewed by anyone. This isn't a reason to add more recipients (who are likely to care even less than your original group). However it *is* a good argument for including all of the specified maintainers/reviewers in on all of the patches. > > 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. > > Thank you, will prune the list and remove past contributors from the > Cc-list and add all parties to all patches. Great. Once you've done that, we can start to help you acquire the Acks you need on your remaining patches. -- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Linaro Services Technical Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog