Re: [PATCH 3/8] doc: bindings: fix bad reference to ARM CPU bindings

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 3:26 AM Otto Sabart <ottosabart@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 03. Jan (Thursday) v 14:53:38 -0600 2019, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 1:04 PM Otto Sabart <ottosabart@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > The primecell.txt and cpus.txt files were converted into YAML. This
> > > patch updates old references with new ones.
> > >
> > > Fixes: d3c207eeb905 ("dt-bindings: arm: Convert primecell binding to json-schema")
> > > Fixes: 672951cbd1b7 ("dt-bindings: arm: Convert cpu binding to json-schema")
> > > Signed-off-by: Otto Sabart <ottosabart@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > As suggested by Jon Corbet, I am *resending* this patch once again to
> > > correct maintainers. There are no changes in the code since my previous
> > > e-mail.
> >
> > Please use scripts/get_maintainers.pl so you get the right lists too.
> >
> > >
> > > Please review.
> >
> > Am I supposed to apply? I don't have a clue because I've only gotten patch 3.
> >
>
> Hello Rob,
> the thing is I messed up and I sent this series of patches to Jon and
> linux-doc list only.
>
> Unfortunately these patches touch multiple subsystems so I now have to
> get them to correct maintainers.
>
> What is the best thing I should do now? Should I resend (with "RESEND
> PATCH" prefix in subject) *whole* series of patches to right maintainers
> and lists returned by get_maintainer.pl?
>
> In my case this scripts returns ~60 names and lists. I suppose it is not
> the right thing to spam all of them... or is it?

That's probably because you're including commit signers which normally
you shouldn't (use --nogit-fallback). Typically, you would only add
commit signers if they are the author of what you are fixing (but that
is me in this case). If you get multiple maintainers of different
subsystems, then that's often a sign that a patch should be split up
(though there are exceptions).

Also, if there's not any inter-dependency between the patches, then
they don't need to be in a series. If a single maintainer should apply
the patches, then they can be in a series. To put it another way, send
a series per maintainer whenever possible.

Rob



[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux FS]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux