Messages in this thread | | | From | Coiby Xu <> | Date | Sun, 1 Nov 2020 06:47:35 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 01/15] iio: accel: remove unnecessary CONFIG_PM_SLEEP |
| |
On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 11:05:11AM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: >On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 22:34:10 +0800 >Coiby Xu <coiby.xu@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 07:06:40PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> >On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 4:42 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org> wrote: >> >> On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 15:48:56 +0800 >> >> Coiby Xu <coiby.xu@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Please put a cover letter on your next series explaining the context. >> >> In this particular case some of the replies you have gotten are >> >> general at it is a lot easier to find these sorts of things via >> >> replying to the cover letter. >> > >> >Looking at the number of duplicate messages I would suggest that one >> >needs to go through documentation on how to use git format-patch and >> >git send-email. >> > >> >> Thank you for the suggestion! Actually it's a tree-wide change and it >> seems the kernel community prefer individual patches or series for >> subsystems having the same maintainer over a huge patch set so I wrote >> some scripts to automate the process. That's why you see ~50 emails >> with almost the same commit message. The only difference of these >> commit messages is the name of PM macro. > >When doing a bit set like this, it's worth sending out a small subset >first to shake out issue like those seen here. > >Once those get merged then send out out the reset. > Thank you for the suggestion! Actually I've held off another ~150 emails and these ~200 emails were only part of work. I thought it's better to reach 4 or 5 subsystem to collect sufficient feedbacks considering some subsystems may respond slow. But I didn't realize a better way is to cut down the size of patch set sent to a subsystem. >Thanks, > >Jonathan > >> >> >-- >> >With Best Regards, >> >Andy Shevchenko >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Coiby >
-- Best regards, Coiby
| |