Hi Andy, On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 5:50 AM Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 11:04 PM Jorge Lopez <jorgealtxwork@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi Andy, > > > > Failure to run your tool and include all the appropriate parties in > > the review was an oversight on my part. I will make sure it is done > > in the following patches. > > Hmm... It uses get_maintainer.pl which I believe uses the MAINTAINERS > database more or less correctly. I use the script on a daily basis. > > > Regarding the statement ... > > > > Please, be careful and read all comments you have been given and react > > to them either by explaining why it's not worth to address or with an > > addressed changes. > > > > All other comments have been addressed in the commit notes and via > > email. > > I have noticed that by reading the next patch. As I mentioned there, > it should be squashed to the first one, I never expected to see two > patches on this topic. This is my first year working with kernel upstream teams and reviewers hence I am a newcomer. For this reason, I was being cautious and separated the changes instead of squashing them. Please excuse my inexperience in the matter. > > > The comments addressed were > > > > - As a quick fix it's good, but have you had a chance to understand why > > this failure happened in the first place? > > > > - Can you check my theory that is expressed in the code below? > > - Leverage ge2maintainer tool to include all appropriate parties. > > (See earlier comment) > > > > Did I address all the comments? If not, please accept my apologies > > and kindly point to the question(s) I need to address. > > > > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko
