Re: [PATCH 1/2] mfd: da9052: fix broken regulator probe

[Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1398 bytes --]

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 06:46:30PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:

> Yes, resending is sometimes needed, but what set me off here was your
> comment that resending might not be enough even after you've now become
> aware of a several-month old regression in your subsystem.

If you're referring to my original reply I'm afraid to disappoint you
but I hadn't read far enough in the backtrace to see anything except
that people wanted me to look at a patch I didn't have a copy of (I
didn't even know if I'd been CCed on the original posting).  I was
simply trying to say that it might be worth looking at other aspects of
how the patch was sent - what you got there was basically a form letter
type response to contentless pings.

> I know you process a lot of mail, but perhaps some (further) filtering
> could help avoid situations like this. The patch touches
> drivers/regulator/ and has a stable tag for example.

Neither of those is reliable enough for mechanical filtering for the
things I'm doing here I'm afraid, and I especially don't think it would
be a good idea people to get the idea that adding a stable tag is a good
way of jumping the queue and it's not that reliable an indication of
urgency (some development only issues that cause widespread breakage are
much more urgent, some stable patches are for things that are definite
issues with clear fixes but relatively low risk/impact).

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]