>> 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. Yes. - This is the usual process. > You can't 'go around' me, if that's what you're thinking. I do not think this. - I hope somehow that additional review comments (by other contributors) could make the handling of shown update candidates more promising. >> 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, There are more options to make it a bit easier, aren't there? > I've kindly requested that you gather all of your MFD patches Or the remaining ones …? > and send them as one single set. Do you still insist to get these seven update steps in a bigger patch series despite of their threaded structure? > Is there a good reason why you're not willing to do so? I am trying to find out if a few formal details are really hindering progress on the clarification of affected implementation details. I assume that additional hints could occur until I might rebase mentioned change combinations on another recent commit. Regards, Markus -- 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
