From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Guru Das Srinagesh Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 00/11] Convert PWM period and duty cycle to u64 Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 16:15:09 -0700 Message-ID: <20200520231508.GA29437@codeaurora.org> References: <20200423114857.GG3612@dell> <20200423215306.GA8670@codeaurora.org> <20200424064303.GJ3612@dell> <20200424221422.GA31118@codeaurora.org> <20200427064434.GA3559@dell> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from alexa-out-sd-02.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.39]:55831 "EHLO alexa-out-sd-02.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728462AbgETXPK (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 May 2020 19:15:10 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200427064434.GA3559@dell> Sender: linux-pwm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org To: Lee Jones , Thierry Reding , Uwe =?utf-8?Q?Kleine-K=C3=B6nig?= Cc: linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, Subbaraman Narayanamurthy , David Collins , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann , Dan Carpenter , Daniel Thompson , Daniel Vetter , David Airlie , Guenter Roeck , Joe Perches On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 07:44:34AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > 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. Hi Lee, Thierry, Uwe, In v14 of this patchset I've pruned the list of contributors, removed past contributors from the cc-list, and added all parties to all patches (except for the patches that are yet to reviewed, for which I've added what get_maintainer.pl showed me). I've also resent v14 a couple of times already, with around a week's time interval between resends, and somehow it seems like this set has lost traction. Could you please indicate what next steps I should take to have more eyes on the unreviewed patches? Only 4 out of 11 patches remain unreviewed. Thank you. Guru Das.