From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from aserp2130.oracle.com ([141.146.126.79]:43372 "EHLO aserp2130.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727429AbeL0NrM (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Dec 2018 08:47:12 -0500 Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 16:40:55 +0300 From: Dan Carpenter Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/20] drop useless LIST_HEAD Message-ID: <20181227134055.GA2272@kadam> References: <1545555435-24576-1-git-send-email-Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Tom Psyborg Cc: Julia Lawall , Andy Shevchenko , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, dmaengine@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Dan Williams , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, Stefano Stabellini , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 11:12:20PM +0100, Tom Psyborg wrote: > there was discussion about this just some days ago. CC 4-5 lists is > more than enough > I don't know who you were discussing this with... You should CC the 0th patch to all the mailinglists. That much is a clear rule. For the rest, Julia's position is the more conservative one. I was in a conversation in RL and they were like, "CC everyone for all the patches". It depends on the context, of course. If the patches are dependent on each other then you *have* to CC everyone for everything. If we really have other clear rules, then it should be encoded into get_maintainer.pl so that it's automatic. My other question is why do the linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org people feel like they need to be CC'd about every driver??? I always remove them from the CC list unless it's an arch/arm issue. regards, dan carpenter PS: Please, no more top posting.