From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wg0-f49.google.com ([74.125.82.49]:36187 "EHLO mail-wg0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753111AbbERKOA (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 May 2015 06:14:00 -0400 Received: by wgbgq6 with SMTP id gq6so7952080wgb.3 for ; Mon, 18 May 2015 03:13:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 11:13:55 +0100 From: Lee Jones To: Johan Hovold Cc: Mark Brown , Support Opensource , Samuel Ortiz , Liam Girdwood , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , Milo Kim , patches@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com, Fabio Estevam , Marek Szyprowski , stable Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mfd: da9052: fix broken regulator probe Message-ID: <20150518101355.GQ22418@x1> References: <20150429074420.GA24139@localhost> <20150429084152.GP9169@x1> <20150513154333.GB19543@x1> <20150513160836.GZ2761@sirena.org.uk> <20150513165419.GF19543@x1> <20150513172936.GE2761@sirena.org.uk> <20150514071943.GA20358@x1> <20150515144739.GC13976@localhost> <20150518091049.GN22418@x1> <20150518095159.GB28127@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20150518095159.GB28127@localhost> Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 18 May 2015, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 10:10:49AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Fri, 15 May 2015, Johan Hovold wrote: > > > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 08:19:43AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > On Wed, 13 May 2015, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 05:54:19PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 13 May 2015, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > If you're looking for me to review something you need to send it to me, > > > > > > > and the chances of me looking at it are very much increased if there's a > > > > > > > relevant subject line. I'm CCed (not even on the to list) on endless > > > > > > > large threads and reposts of patch serieses about MFD drivers most of > > > > > > > which are of very little relevance to me so they get ignored very > > > > > > > easily. > > > > > > > > > > > Calm down dear, it's only a commercial. > > > > > > > > > > > I wasn't having a pop. Rather empathising with your situation and > > > > > > facilitating a resend that you're likely to see. > > > > > > > > > > > I'm sure Johan will do the right thing. > > > > > > > > > > My point is that a simple resend has a reasonable chance of getting > > > > > dropped on the floor. > > > > > > > > As I say, I'm sure Johan will do what's required for that not to > > > > happen. > > > > > > Seriously? *Me* do the right thing? > > > > Yes, *you*. If a patch slips though a Maintainer's net, which does > > happen every so often [*], I'm sure even you are not infallible to > > that, a submitter must issue a RESEND (as you have now just done so). > > As you know, five reminders asking for an ack from Mark was sent by the > two of us combined without even an indication that the messages had been > noted over a period of almost two months. > > If Mark feels that he is getting spammed with unrelated MFD patches, > then *you* and Mark need to figure out a way to get a message across > when there actually is something he needs to look at. > > I don't care if it's with a special [Lee-wants-Marks-ack] subject > prefix, an irc message on Linaro's channels or a phone call, but it's not > something that a patch submitter for MFD should need to know about > (it obviously isn't even documented). > > > > We have a regression in your subsystems (mfd/regulator) with a fix > > > that's been sitting in both your mailboxes since March 25th. > > > > Fully aware and ready to apply once the correct process has been > > carried out. I get shirty when people submit MFD patches without > > permission, and I refuse to be a hypocrite. > > That's perfectly fine. Your subsystems intersect and you two need to > figure out how you communicate. That's all. This issue is out of the ordinary. Normally Mark is pretty good at providing me with the Acks I need. More commonly I have issues such as the one you are experiencing with non-responsive/inactive Maintainers. In future, for yourself and anyone else who is following this thread for 'fun', if a patch crosses multiple subsystems (which I try to keep to a minimum) it's probably best to indicate that in the subject line. mfd: regulator: ... would definitely get Marks attention. And yes, I know 'regulator' is mentioned in the subject line of the particular patch. :) -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog