Re: [PATCH 02/12] blk: use for_each_if

From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
To: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	DRI Development <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com>,
	Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Joseph Qi <joseph.qi@linux.alibaba.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/12] blk: use for_each_if
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 11:28:55 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <be625c55-26f2-f0df-ecb3-3520d19b9ef1@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2296606a890a1f3543c5db825ed172f7d295a504.camel@perches.com>

On 07/12/2018 08:45 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-07-11 at 20:50 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 8:30 PM, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
>>> On 7/11/18 10:45 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 09:40:58AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 10:36:40AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>>>>> Makes the macros resilient against if {} else {} blocks right
>>>>>> afterwards.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
>>>>>> Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
>>>>>> Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
>>>>>> Cc: Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com>
>>>>>> Cc: Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>
>>>>>> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
>>>>>> Cc: Joseph Qi <joseph.qi@linux.alibaba.com>
>>>>>> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
>>>>>> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
>>>>>
>>>>> Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jens, it'd probably be best to route this through block tree.
>>>>
>>>> Oops, this requires an earlier patch to move the for_each_if def to a
>>>> common header and should be routed together.
>>>
>>> Yeah, this is a problem with the submission.
>>>
>>> Always (ALWAYS) CC folks on at least the cover letter and generic
>>> earlier patches. Getting just one patch sent like this is mostly
>>> useless, and causes more harm than good.
>>
>> Ime sending a patch with more than 20 or so recipients means it gets
>> stuck everywhere in moderation queues. Or outright spam filters. I
>> thought the correct way to do this is to cc: mailing lists (lkml has
>> them all), but apparently that's not how it's done. Despite that all
>> the patch series I get never have the cover letter addressed to me
>> either.
>>
>> So what's the magic way to make this possible?
> 
> Jens' advice is crap.

This statement was rather offensive and totally uncalled for, AFAICS.
Why did you write it like that?

> There is no generic way to make this possible.
> 
> BCC's don't work, series that touch multiple subsystems
> get rejected when the recipient list is too large.

I don't know what's the usual limit for recipient list, probably never
hit it myself, but for series that are not so large, I use this approach
to make sure the cover letter is CC'd to everyone that's CC'd in any
patch in the series:

- add per-patch Cc:'s to the git commit logs
- clear out *.patch from the working dir
- git format-patch --cover-letter ...
- edit cover letter
- git send-email ... --cc-cmd=./cc.sh ...

where cc.sh contains this:

#/bin/sh
if [[ $1 == *cover-letter* ]]; then
        grep '<.*@.*>' -h *.patch | sed 's/^.*: //' | sort | uniq
else
        grep '<.*@.*>' -h $1 | sed 's/^.*: //' | sort | uniq
fi

That proceses all tags besides Cc (acked-by, reported-by etc) and turns
them to Cc's for each patch (or does git now do that by itself as well?)
and for cover letter, it accumulates that from all the patches.

Vlastimil

> I think you did it correctly.
> 