Re: [PATCH 02/12] blk: use for_each_if

[Joe Perches]

On Wed, 2018-07-11 at 20:50 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 8:30 PM, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 7/11/18 10:45 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 09:40:58AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 10:36:40AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > > Makes the macros resilient against if {} else {} blocks right
> > > > > afterwards.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: Shaohua Li <shli@xxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: Kate Stewart <kstewart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: Joseph Qi <joseph.qi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
> > > > 
> > > > Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > 
> > > > Jens, it'd probably be best to route this through block tree.
> > > 
> > > Oops, this requires an earlier patch to move the for_each_if def to a
> > > common header and should be routed together.
> > 
> > Yeah, this is a problem with the submission.
> > 
> > Always (ALWAYS) CC folks on at least the cover letter and generic
> > earlier patches. Getting just one patch sent like this is mostly
> > useless, and causes more harm than good.
> 
> Ime sending a patch with more than 20 or so recipients means it gets
> stuck everywhere in moderation queues. Or outright spam filters. I
> thought the correct way to do this is to cc: mailing lists (lkml has
> them all), but apparently that's not how it's done. Despite that all
> the patch series I get never have the cover letter addressed to me
> either.
> 
> So what's the magic way to make this possible?

Jens' advice is crap.

There is no generic way to make this possible.

BCC's don't work, series that touch multiple subsystems
get rejected when the recipient list is too large.

I think you did it correctly.