From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755209AbYBDNND (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Feb 2008 08:13:03 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752268AbYBDNMx (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Feb 2008 08:12:53 -0500 Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:40398 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751762AbYBDNMv (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Feb 2008 08:12:51 -0500 Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 05:12:30 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Jeff Garzik , Greg KH , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, pcihpd-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-scsi , James Bottomley Subject: Re: [patch] pci: pci_enable_device_bars() fix Message-Id: <20080204051230.70d5b735.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20080204125736.GA32056@elte.hu> References: <20080201231147.GA18174@suse.de> <20080202111322.GA30767@elte.hu> <47A49171.2000003@garzik.org> <20080202170828.GA12748@elte.hu> <47A4A96D.2040709@garzik.org> <20080202175738.GA26560@elte.hu> <47A4BB3C.6050709@garzik.org> <20080202193524.GC27927@elte.hu> <47A4D71F.3060009@garzik.org> <20080204125736.GA32056@elte.hu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.1 (GTK+ 2.8.17; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 13:57:36 +0100 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Jeff Garzik wrote: > > > Ingo Molnar wrote: > >> so please tell me Jeff. If Greg, who is the super-maintainer of your > >> code area, and who deals with your code every day and changes it > >> every minute and hour, simply did not Cc: the SCSI list - how am i, a > >> largely outside party in this matter, supposed to notice that 3 > >> maintainers and 3 mailing lists in the Cc: were somehow not enough > >> and that i was supposed to grow the already sizable Cc: list even > >> more? > > > > Because, regardless of the situation, it's both common courtesy and > > wise practice to CC relevant driver maintainers, when you touch a > > driver. > > > > And it's just common sense: Greg simply does not know the intimate > > details of every PCI driver. Nor do I. Nor you. > > > > In the case of lpfc here, we have an active driver maintainer, and an > > up-to-date MAINTAINERS entry. Even if you are too slack to read > > MAINTAINERS, 'git log' would have given you the same info. > > > > Don't pretend there is some benefit here to ignoring the people that > > best know the driver. I don't buy that; it simply makes no > > engineering sense whatsoever. > > what you _STILL_ do not realize is the following: you still attribute > the lack of Cc:s to some intention of mine. No, it was not my intention. > At first glance the Cc: looked large and complete enough in an > _existing_ discussion and that's was the end of my (brief) attention > regarding the Cc: line. Yes, it would have been a bit better had i > noticed the lack of Cc:s in an existing discussion, but i didnt. Actually I (and probably others) generally avoid cc'ing mailing lists on patch traffic. I spew out enough script-generated traffic as it is. > ... > mailing list aliases to get the 'guaranteed attention' of maintainers > whoa. You must know better mailing lists than I do ;)