Re: [PATCH 1/2] mfd: da9052: fix broken regulator probe

[Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>]

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 05:24:05PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 11:51:59AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:

> > 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.
> 
> Like I say, resending is the main advice here.
> 
> > 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).
> 
> Resending is something that is pretty standard.  Most of the things that
> can result in something not getting looked at also involve no longer
> having a copy of the patch (so a resend will be needed anyway), and
> often many of the others will result in the ping not being seen either
> (for example it gets threaded in with the patch buried in the mailbox,
> or it looks like the patch is generating lots of discussion and will
> need a new version anyway).  At best it's going to require going and
> finding the original mail, and they can be actively unhelpful.
> 
> A fresh copy of the patch in contrast fits naturally into the standard
> workflow with no extra barriers.

Yes, resending is sometimes needed, but what set me off here was your
comment that resending might not be enough even after you've now become
aware of a several-month old regression in your subsystem.

I know you process a lot of mail, but perhaps some (further) filtering
could help avoid situations like this. The patch touches
drivers/regulator/ and has a stable tag for example.

Johan