From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1423181AbcFHIpz (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 8 Jun 2016 04:45:55 -0400
Received: from sauhun.de ([89.238.76.85]:56550 "EHLO pokefinder.org"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1422921AbcFHIpw (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 8 Jun 2016 04:45:52 -0400
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 10:45:47 +0200
From: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
Cc: linux-i2c <linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>,
        Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>,
        GregKH <greg@kroah.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 00/14] eeprom: at24: driver rework and
 at24cs/at24mac support
Message-ID: <20160608084547.GJ1521@katana>
References: <1465202936-16832-1-git-send-email-bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
 <20160606111347.GA1516@katana>
 <CAMpxmJWVjtNPZGj-PV4rASdqVcCex22Jsu2cqG_Lom9LvGrOgw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="I/5syFLg1Ed7r+1G"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMpxmJWVjtNPZGj-PV4rASdqVcCex22Jsu2cqG_Lom9LvGrOgw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


--I/5syFLg1Ed7r+1G
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline


> sorry for that. I always resend after a week without response - just
> as suggested in Documentation/SubmittingPatches.

Wow, do I really have to tell you these things?

* It doesn't suggest to do that. It suggests to wait *a minimum* a week if
  you yourself considered doing that.

* A ping is more lightweight than resending 14 patches

* You *know* the lag in the i2c patch review. How should a reference to
  SubmittingPatches help the situation?

Needless to say, I could have reviewed a patch now instead of uncovering
wrong/sloppy readings of SubmittingPatches which I don't want to spread :(


--I/5syFLg1Ed7r+1G
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=b8Hp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--I/5syFLg1Ed7r+1G--