Re: [PATCH V2] drivers: CCI: fix used_mask init in validate_group()

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Thursday 30 April 2015 10:46:13 Mark Salter wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 15:38 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 03:03:07PM +0100, Mark Salter wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 14:33 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > > > Could you please send this to arm-soc as suggested by Will, with the 
> > > > > > relevant acks/reviews  ?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > I sent it on Tuesday. Did it not show up? Is arm@xxxxxxxxxx the correct
> > > > > address? I got the cc:
> > > > > 
> > > > > From: Mark Salter <msalter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > To: arm@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Cc: Mark Salter <msalter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Subject: [PATCH V2] drivers: CCI: fix used_mask init in validate_group()
> > > > > Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 13:09:32 -0400
> > > > > Message-Id: <1430240972-16386-1-git-send-email-msalter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > 
> > > > That's the right address, but that only goes to the maintainers, and
> > > > doesn't get copied to any list. In future, please Cc linux-arm-kernel in
> > > > addition.
> > > 
> > > That's where I sent it originally.
> > 
> > Sure, but it's good to Cc when sending to arm-soc so as to make it
> > visible that the patches have been sent. Doing so avoids the necessity
> > of queries like Suzuki's, and makes it possible for others to reply to
> > the version sent to arm@xxxxxxxxxx in the case of conflicts or other
> > issues.
> 
> But why did it need to be sent to a private maintainer's list in the
> first place? I think that the destination addresses of the original
> posting was perfectly reasonable given output from get_maintainer.pl
> and that sending me to a private list was an unnecessary hoop to
> jump through.

The purpose of the arm@xxxxxxxxxx alias is for subarch maintainers to send
us stuff, it's not really meant for normal developers, unless specifically
advised by a maintainer. Each file we maintain through arm-soc normally
belongs to one subarch, so we tend to not pick up any patches on the mailing
list and instead wait for that subarch maintainer to pick them up and forward
the changes to us.

That model model breaks down to some degree for drivers/bus, in particular
for stuff that is not specific to just one SoC. I have the patch in my
todo list now, sorry about missing that earlier. We should probably come up
with a better way to handle patches like this one.

	Arnd
--
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/