From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754600AbbERSrT (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 May 2015 14:47:19 -0400 Received: from mezzanine.sirena.org.uk ([106.187.55.193]:46026 "EHLO mezzanine.sirena.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754240AbbERSrR (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 May 2015 14:47:17 -0400 Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 19:46:54 +0100 From: Mark Brown To: Johan Hovold Cc: Lee Jones , Support Opensource , Samuel Ortiz , Liam Girdwood , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , Milo Kim , patches@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com, Fabio Estevam , Marek Szyprowski , stable Message-ID: <20150518184654.GC2761@sirena.org.uk> References: <20150513154333.GB19543@x1> <20150513160836.GZ2761@sirena.org.uk> <20150513165419.GF19543@x1> <20150513172936.GE2761@sirena.org.uk> <20150514071943.GA20358@x1> <20150515144739.GC13976@localhost> <20150518091049.GN22418@x1> <20150518095159.GB28127@localhost> <20150518162405.GA2761@sirena.org.uk> <20150518164630.GL28127@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="A7r2ZSzTc5uUoZ5x" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150518164630.GL28127@localhost> X-Cookie: 13. ... r-q1 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 94.175.94.161 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: broonie@sirena.org.uk Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mfd: da9052: fix broken regulator probe X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mezzanine.sirena.org.uk) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --A7r2ZSzTc5uUoZ5x Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline 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). --A7r2ZSzTc5uUoZ5x Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVWjOdAAoJECTWi3JdVIfQuZUH/iul60q2FR6JYtrheokNYB9t 4fWa101iR6GIFXvJ7qzCYDULtz3Ak4yEcxunrgwjkgL1gUwxB5GmmxdOtjD28UWo vZ0okO0Z/XEIK9yXBAcri6hYKMcsRhJ4g9Smr1hk34OWgrXs/Y/jUhUmHWDW1EUp h34kGhYkl714BpiI94TMPzwi+N3rgk7GmsH3QnXrvEKcFR3Pn95c0VMwA5qMpH8y Nt6NxOOtbnUYS5cRBqeei94w/+WvdSKpIRTJUfeUcoATvAciE88AV2bLPqOTjLkI cnq713YwPuLCfU7SL8jbAHBE4pmmFjfOTeYmqO6Zm05kFAWPZGlSnxukPFFPfpM= =NsBz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --A7r2ZSzTc5uUoZ5x--