From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755593AbbESMCQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 May 2015 08:02:16 -0400 Received: from mezzanine.sirena.org.uk ([106.187.55.193]:47078 "EHLO mezzanine.sirena.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753994AbbESMCM (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 May 2015 08:02:12 -0400 Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 13:01:50 +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: <20150519120150.GI2761@sirena.org.uk> References: <20150514071943.GA20358@x1> <20150515144739.GC13976@localhost> <20150518091049.GN22418@x1> <20150518095159.GB28127@localhost> <20150518162405.GA2761@sirena.org.uk> <20150518164630.GL28127@localhost> <20150518184654.GC2761@sirena.org.uk> <20150519100103.GM28127@localhost> <20150519103808.GE2761@sirena.org.uk> <20150519110119.GN28127@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="WShZeigWAUoBhOzF" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150519110119.GN28127@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 --WShZeigWAUoBhOzF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 01:01:19PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote: > My reminders sent directly to you explicitly mentioned it being a > regression every time. That should trigger a maintainer's interest > enough to look at the quoted context or ask for a resend. Sadly what I actually ended up reading was Lee's reply not one of your mails. > How should a patch submitter know that you simply drop mails with an mfd > prefix even if it's directed to you? Unless documented somewhere, that's > were Lee can help through being familiar with the quirks of your work flow. I don't drop *all* such mails, this isn't a rules based thing but rather something that depends on a bunch of factors including how busy I am at that particular moment. MFD discussions (even more so than patches) are certainly a bit of a warning sign here but that's not the only factor and there are positives as well as negatives. For example very broad CC lists on driver specific patches usually indicate that someone just sent the mail to everyone that get_maintainers --git pulled out (which tends to generate a lot of false positives), but on the other hand something like syscon (which is broadly used) or DT bindings (which often affect subfunctions too) is more likely to be relevant. About the only hard and fast rule for this sort of thing is that if someone wants specific people to look at a patch it's usually a good idea to send the actual patch directly to them with a relevant subject line. --WShZeigWAUoBhOzF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVWyYtAAoJECTWi3JdVIfQIwQH/RZdoe1WBfa8+meirnAnsqd/ Hun/LiKSNdKv5KjcT3Gag5K/5XjQlOzBUtNwRFT2Qk60f2VJZgdIFYvUVcrIibmM ZocswYmMXNxLGSYeEVTufV3B1adiDxJJ8Sm1wqxAB1PHLYWe0q/PJ9vAKrGRpoWW 0sEulCIHiUQh6BnzP1H7ovE4aNOydmTEYzf/kY7ukqysWai3BT/23xTv5prC0sHL sCpmvQndp116U5S+UlnXhAUupwSuPGAJmamCB45krGNkeOc+/ffFiLjZkElREQan PeVQM8ADUQgv+x2TPt8x3wQUgESJjjOrtfVvKD/V15/oMTLUrtmAmUycslqkwWE= =moQw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --WShZeigWAUoBhOzF--