Re: [PATCH v1.0 1/11] arcmsr: Revise interrupt service routine relate function

[éæé]

Hi James,

Indeed, it makes you confusion that I mistake typing the subject.
It should be [PATCH v1.0 1/16] , but not [PATCH v1.0 1/11].
Why I use v1.0 other than v1.4? Changing from 11 patches to 16 patches.
Because I spend a long time to simplify each patch, so patch number is increase.
It is easier to review.

I am so sorry for late to response that make you are inconvenient.
>From now on, I will response quickly.

Thanks for your advice.

2014-05-01 0:56 GMT+08:00 James Bottomley <jbottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Wed, 2014-04-30 at 17:40 +0800, ching wrote:
>> From: Ching<ching2048@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Rewrite interrupt service routine relate function to fix command
>> timeout on controller very heavy loading.
>
> OK, so I think you've confused us a bit.  This looks to be an update of
> your previous v1.4 patch set, yet it's now called v1.0?
>
> Could you please include a cover letter as patch 0/x like you see
> everyone else doing on the list?  In this cover letter can you tell us
> what the disposition of the previous feedback is and what other changes
> have you done? You didn't reply to any of the comments, have have you
> fixed them?  It's very dispiriting to review 11 patches, give feedback
> and not hear anything ... and then have to review an even longer set of
> patches just to see if anything was done about your previous comments.
>
> The less interactive you are with reviews, the less chance there is that
> people will review updates ... without external reviewers, you go on a
> very long backlog of things I have to review before the patches get in.
>
> James
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/