Re: [PATCH 7/10] compiler{,-gcc4}.h: Introduce __flatten function attribute

Daniel Santos
2012-10-03T14:46:44Z

On 10/03/2012 09:01 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-10-03 at 06:20 -0500, Daniel Santos wrote:
>
>>> Daniel, please introduce __flatten in the patch series that uses it,
>>> thanks.
>> That isn't going to work. I split my patches out into three sets
>> because, otherwise, the list of maintainers that must be CCed exceeds
>> the allowable size of the LKML server and my messages get tagged as
>> spam, causing untold confusion as messages reach maintainers, but not
>> the LKML. Please note from the summary of this patch set
>> (https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/9/28/1136)
> That's not a valid reason to not included it with the other patch
> series.
>
>>> This patch set is a dependency of the generic red-black tree patch set, which
>>> I have now split up into three smaller sets.
>> And the patch set this depends upon was submitted 9/28 as well
>> (https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/9/28/1183) and the summary starts with this
>> text:
>>> This patch set depends upon the following:
>>> * Cleanup & new features for compiler*.h and bug.h
>>> * kernel-doc bug fixes (for generating docs)
>> If I move this patch to the other patch set,
>> scripts/get_maintainers.pl will give me a list longer than the LKML
>> administrator will allow for recipients (1024 bytes max)
> You don't need to use get_maintainers. It's more of a help tool to find
> maintainers and not something that is mandatory. Not everyone that has
> ever touched one of these files needs to be Cc'd.
>
> Please move the patch to the patch series where it is used. Otherwise it
> confuses reviewers as it did here.
Ok then, but this would also apply to the addition of these macros as well:
BUILD_BUG_ON_NON_CONST
BUILD_BUG42
BUILD_BUG_ON_NON_CONST42

Should these then also be moved?
Should I only CC those who have responded to these patches and whomever
is in the MAINTAINERS file then?

Thanks
Daniel