From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755247AbdKBIW2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Nov 2017 04:22:28 -0400 Received: from mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de ([81.169.146.161]:18419 "EHLO mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751567AbdKBIWZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Nov 2017 04:22:25 -0400 X-RZG-AUTH: :P2MHfkW8eP4Mre39l357AZT/I7AY/7nT2yrDxb8mjG14FZxedJy6qgO1rHLMalyLi1fNpX87/zI= X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo00 Subject: Re: [v2] can: Use common error handling code in vxcan_newlink() To: SF Markus Elfring , Marc Kleine-Budde , Wolfgang Grandegger , linux-can@vger.kernel.org, "netdev@vger.kernel.org" Cc: LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org References: <2e600d9a-faec-dd39-08f0-5a7fb260d7ca@users.sourceforge.net> <2ab5d794-7a5c-9036-835c-67cfcc541795@hartkopp.net> <264b3c2b-8354-5769-639c-ac8d2fcbe630@hartkopp.net> <23fbbdba-fb11-a6bc-7d6a-4af43ef79503@users.sourceforge.net> <08fd31d5-8677-81e7-65d6-40d501017db6@hartkopp.net> <2346609d-85f6-6eec-e492-d15ba1b6489a@users.sourceforge.net> From: Oliver Hartkopp Message-ID: <205ba2b1-ae1d-d0ae-7d78-47d2285ed3fc@hartkopp.net> Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 09:22:08 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2346609d-85f6-6eec-e492-d15ba1b6489a@users.sourceforge.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/01/2017 08:37 PM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > These addresses were suggested (or recommended?) by the script “get_maintainer.pl”. I know. (..) > How does this view fit to the information in the section “5) Select > the recipients for your patch” from the document “submitting-patches.rst”? We discussed and agreed about your patch. It is clear and simple and has no side effects to any other driver nor other subsystems. It was just about getting *this* patch into upstream where the Linux CAN ML is the right place to post - that was my suggestion. So there was no need to take the *standard* get_maintainer mail pump-gun again for this patch in order to save bandwidth, energy and peoples lifetime :-) Regards, Oliver