On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > >> I am curious if more positive feedback could evolve till then. > >> I would appreciate if a potentially needed resend for my selection > >> of update suggestions could become smaller (when reviewed steps > >> could be already integrated for example). > > > > I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say, > > in any of your responses. > > I imagine that acceptance for these changes could be influenced > also by review comments from other contributors. Influenced yes, but I will also need to review them. You can't 'go around' me, if that's what you're thinking. > > If you want to rebase your patches, to see what has been applied and > > what hasn't, you can use the MFD repo and its next-next branch. > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lee/mfd.git/log/?h=for-mfd-next-next > > How are the chances that further update suggestions will be integrated > just because I sent them as small patch series in the threaded way? > > Examples: > * tps65910: Adjustments for four function implementations > https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/1/16/313 > > * abx500-core: Adjustments for eight function implementations > https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/1/16/186 In order to not make my life difficult, I've kindly requested that you gather all of your MFD patches and send them as one single set. Is there a good reason why you're not willing to do so? -- Lee Jones Linaro Services Technical Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
