On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 08:43:01AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 05/23/2014 08:34 AM, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > There is also a documentation patch [1] in this series but, again, I didn't > > CC everybody on it. Sorry, but the level of interest this sort of stuff > > generates amongst kernel developers is close to zero so I only included > > people I thought cared on CC for the entire series. I'm stuck between a rock > > and a hard place trying to CC interested people whilst at the same time > > trying to avoid spamming all the arch maintainers. > > > > If you are sending me a patch, please include me on the cover letter for > the patch series. You don't have to send me the entire patch series > (although for something like a Documentation patch which affects x86 I > would consider including the union list as well.) > > I think regardless of level of interest, the definition of > cross-architectural operations is exactly the arch maintainers job, so > it isn't really out of place to "spam" us... So the one issue I had with that, is that if one tries to send an email to all arch maintainers + linux-arch + linux-kernel, the header gets too big and vger chokes and davem slaps you. So while its possibly desirable to do big unions with 0/xx and the like, its practically infeasible.
Attachment:
pgpjGhqbI4yC_.pgp
Description: PGP signature
