From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Catalin Marinas Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 10:10:34 +0000 Message-ID: <20150116101034.GC13634@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1421247905-3749-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <20150115182346.GE2329@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20150115190220.GF3043@sirena.org.uk> <20150115200437.GF24989@titan.lakedaemon.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from foss-mx-na.foss.arm.com ([217.140.108.86]:35547 "EHLO foss-mx-na.foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751854AbbAPKK6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Jan 2015 05:10:58 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150115200437.GF24989@titan.lakedaemon.net> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Jason Cooper Cc: Mark Brown , "grant.likely@linaro.org" , Will Deacon , "hanjun.guo@linaro.org" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Olof Johansson , Arnd Bergmann , Mark Rutland , Lorenzo Pieralisi , "graeme.gregory@linaro.org" , Sudeep Holla , "jcm@redhat.com" , Marc Zyngier , Bjorn Helgaas , Rob Herring , Robert Richter , Randy Dunlap , Charles Garcia-Tobin , "phoenix.liyi@huawei.com" , Timur Tabi , "suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com" , Yijin On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 08:04:37PM +0000, Jason Cooper wrote: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 07:02:20PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 06:23:47PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 04:26:20PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote: > > > > > > I'll get right to the point: Can we please have this series queued up > > > > for v3.20? > > > > > Before you even ask for this, please look at the patches and realise > > > that there is a complete lack of Reviewed-by tags on the code (well, > > > apart from trivial Kconfig changes). In addition, the series touches on > > > other subsystems like clocksource, irqchip, acpi and I don't see any > > > acks from the corresponding maintainers. So even if I wanted to merge > > > the series, there is no way it can be done without additional > > > reviews/acks. On the document (last patch), I'd like to see a statement > > > > There's probably a bit of a process problem here - these patches are all > > being posted as part of big and apparently controversial threads with > > subject lines in the form "ARM / ACPI:" so people could be forgiven for > > just not even reading the e-mails enough to notice changes to their > > subsystems. Is it worth posting those patches separately more directly > > to the relevant maintainers? > > I think it's beneficial to post the entire series as one thread, but to > change the subject line of each patch to adequately reflect the affected > subsystem. Indeed, keeping the series as one thread is better. Apart from a slightly less misleading subject, I suggest Hanjun that he passes each patch via get_maintainer.pl and adds the corresponding Cc: lines to the commit log. I think that's a clearer way keep track of who needs to ack/review the patches. -- Catalin From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753319AbbAPKLB (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Jan 2015 05:11:01 -0500 Received: from foss-mx-na.foss.arm.com ([217.140.108.86]:35547 "EHLO foss-mx-na.foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751854AbbAPKK6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Jan 2015 05:10:58 -0500 Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 10:10:34 +0000 From: Catalin Marinas To: Jason Cooper Cc: Mark Brown , "grant.likely@linaro.org" , Will Deacon , "hanjun.guo@linaro.org" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Olof Johansson , Arnd Bergmann , Mark Rutland , Lorenzo Pieralisi , "graeme.gregory@linaro.org" , Sudeep Holla , "jcm@redhat.com" , Marc Zyngier , Bjorn Helgaas , Rob Herring , Robert Richter , Randy Dunlap , Charles Garcia-Tobin , "phoenix.liyi@huawei.com" , Timur Tabi , "suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com" , Yijing Wang , ACPI Devel Mailing List , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linaro-acpi Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 Message-ID: <20150116101034.GC13634@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1421247905-3749-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <20150115182346.GE2329@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20150115190220.GF3043@sirena.org.uk> <20150115200437.GF24989@titan.lakedaemon.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150115200437.GF24989@titan.lakedaemon.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 08:04:37PM +0000, Jason Cooper wrote: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 07:02:20PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 06:23:47PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 04:26:20PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote: > > > > > > I'll get right to the point: Can we please have this series queued up > > > > for v3.20? > > > > > Before you even ask for this, please look at the patches and realise > > > that there is a complete lack of Reviewed-by tags on the code (well, > > > apart from trivial Kconfig changes). In addition, the series touches on > > > other subsystems like clocksource, irqchip, acpi and I don't see any > > > acks from the corresponding maintainers. So even if I wanted to merge > > > the series, there is no way it can be done without additional > > > reviews/acks. On the document (last patch), I'd like to see a statement > > > > There's probably a bit of a process problem here - these patches are all > > being posted as part of big and apparently controversial threads with > > subject lines in the form "ARM / ACPI:" so people could be forgiven for > > just not even reading the e-mails enough to notice changes to their > > subsystems. Is it worth posting those patches separately more directly > > to the relevant maintainers? > > I think it's beneficial to post the entire series as one thread, but to > change the subject line of each patch to adequately reflect the affected > subsystem. Indeed, keeping the series as one thread is better. Apart from a slightly less misleading subject, I suggest Hanjun that he passes each patch via get_maintainer.pl and adds the corresponding Cc: lines to the commit log. I think that's a clearer way keep track of who needs to ack/review the patches. -- Catalin From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 10:10:34 +0000 Subject: [PATCH v7 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 In-Reply-To: <20150115200437.GF24989@titan.lakedaemon.net> References: <1421247905-3749-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <20150115182346.GE2329@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20150115190220.GF3043@sirena.org.uk> <20150115200437.GF24989@titan.lakedaemon.net> Message-ID: <20150116101034.GC13634@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 08:04:37PM +0000, Jason Cooper wrote: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 07:02:20PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 06:23:47PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 04:26:20PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote: > > > > > > I'll get right to the point: Can we please have this series queued up > > > > for v3.20? > > > > > Before you even ask for this, please look at the patches and realise > > > that there is a complete lack of Reviewed-by tags on the code (well, > > > apart from trivial Kconfig changes). In addition, the series touches on > > > other subsystems like clocksource, irqchip, acpi and I don't see any > > > acks from the corresponding maintainers. So even if I wanted to merge > > > the series, there is no way it can be done without additional > > > reviews/acks. On the document (last patch), I'd like to see a statement > > > > There's probably a bit of a process problem here - these patches are all > > being posted as part of big and apparently controversial threads with > > subject lines in the form "ARM / ACPI:" so people could be forgiven for > > just not even reading the e-mails enough to notice changes to their > > subsystems. Is it worth posting those patches separately more directly > > to the relevant maintainers? > > I think it's beneficial to post the entire series as one thread, but to > change the subject line of each patch to adequately reflect the affected > subsystem. Indeed, keeping the series as one thread is better. Apart from a slightly less misleading subject, I suggest Hanjun that he passes each patch via get_maintainer.pl and adds the corresponding Cc: lines to the commit log. I think that's a clearer way keep track of who needs to ack/review the patches. -- Catalin