From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751119AbcEGUmC (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 May 2016 16:42:02 -0400 Received: from ns.horizon.com ([71.41.210.147]:18391 "HELO ns.horizon.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750961AbcEGUmB (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 May 2016 16:42:01 -0400 Date: 7 May 2016 16:41:59 -0400 Message-ID: <20160507204159.24714.qmail@ns.horizon.com> From: "George Spelvin" To: schwab@linux-m68k.org Subject: Re: [patch V4] lib: GCD: Use binary GCD algorithm instead of Euclidean Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux@horizon.com In-Reply-To: <87d1oyrvrg.fsf@linux-m68k.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Take a look at the Cc: list. Yes, I realized how long it was about half a second after hitting "send". Although I didn't really think it through at the time, even now that I do it's not entirely clear who should have been trimmed, either. In general lkml tradition is to not drop people from the Cc: list unless you're really sure they're not interested, and my suggestion to rename the CONFIG_ option is something that really wants multiple people's opinions. Do you think it's borderline (and I'll think harder in future), or am I misjudging and I was *clearly* over the line?