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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
