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

From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>, 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: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 08:41:42 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180712064142.GB3008@phenom.ffwll.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5bacce40-d29d-8eaf-f3bb-2ac2889bbeb0@kernel.dk>

On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 03:13:00PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 7/11/18 3:08 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 10:06 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 01:31:51PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>> I don't think there's a git easy way of sending it out outside of
> >>> just ensuring that everybody is CC'ed on everything. I don't mind
> >>> that at all. I don't subscribe to lkml, and the patches weren't
> >>> sent to linux-block. Hence all I see is this stand-alone patch,
> >>> and logic would dictate that it's stand-alone (but it isn't).
> > 
> > Hm yeah I forgot to add linux-block. But others where there's no
> > dedicated list (or get_maintainers.pl didn't have one) also complained
> > about not getting Cc'ed, and I can't Cc everyone for sweeping changes.
> 
> I don't personally see a problem with just CC'ing everyone.
> 
> >> What I sometimes do is including a short blurb on each patch giving
> >> the overview and action hints (e.g. this is part of patchset doing XYZ
> >> and should be routed such and such).  It's a bit redundant but has
> >> worked pretty well for patchsets with dependenat & sweeping changes.
> > 
> > Yeah I guess I can just copypaste/summarize patch 1 to all the
> > subsequent patches, sounds like the best option.
> 
> Another approach might be to submit the first independent patch
> separately. Once that's in the kernel, you can send out the rest
> as independent patches instead of doing a cross-kernel series that
> all depend on one single patch. Seems to me that's where you run
> into issues, and it can be avoided quite easily.

Well patch 1 died in a bikeshed (or is on live support at most). I kinda
hoped that showing it's somewhat widely used pattern in the kernel would
help it's cause, but alas not going to happen.

Anyway for next time around I'll crank up the Cc: knob to the max :-)

Thanks anyway for comments and stuff.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch