Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 22 May 2020 12:31:47 +0100 | From | Lee Jones <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v13 00/11] Convert PWM period and duty cycle to u64 |
| |
On Fri, 22 May 2020, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 08:15:05AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Wed, 20 May 2020, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 07:44:34AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > On Fri, 24 Apr 2020, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 07:43:03AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > > A great deal of mailing lists contain numerous protections against > > > > > > things like flooding and spamming. One of those protections is a > > > > > > check for "Too many recipients to the message". Most of the time this > > > > > > simply requires moderator intervention by way of review and approval, > > > > > > but this ultimately depends on the ML's configuration. > > > > > > > > > > > > The first thing to ascertain is why your recipients list is so large. > > > > > > Have you added every reviewer, subsystem-maintainer, maintainer and > > > > > > contributor suggested by get-maintainer.pl? If so, consider pruning > > > > > > that a little. Contributors do not tend to care about subsequent > > > > > > changes to a file. As someone who receives a lot of patches, I tend > > > > > > to get fed-up when receiving patches simply because I made a change X > > > > > > years ago. Stick to listed maintainers/reviewers in the first > > > > > > instance and see how far that takes you. > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the detailed reply. I did this in the first few patchsets > > > > > and then when a few patches didn't get any attention, expanded the > > > > > audience thus. Still, around 50% of the patches in this series remain > > > > > unreviewed by anyone. > > > > > > > > This isn't a reason to add more recipients (who are likely to care > > > > even less than your original group). However it *is* a good argument > > > > for including all of the specified maintainers/reviewers in on all of > > > > the patches. > > > > > > > > > > If your recipients list is as succinct as reasonably possible, maybe > > > > > > just accept that every version isn't going to be archived by every > > > > > > ML. It's still much more useful for the correct people to have > > > > > > visibility into the set than for it to be archived multiple times. > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, will prune the list and remove past contributors from the > > > > > Cc-list and add all parties to all patches. > > > > > > > > Great. Once you've done that, we can start to help you acquire the > > > > Acks you need on your remaining patches. > > > > > > Hi Lee, Thierry, Uwe, > > > > > > In v14 of this patchset I've pruned the list of contributors, removed > > > past contributors from the cc-list, and added all parties to all patches > > > (except for the patches that are yet to reviewed, for which I've added > > > what get_maintainer.pl showed me). I've also resent v14 a couple of > > > times already, with around a week's time interval between resends, and > > > somehow it seems like this set has lost traction. > > > > > > Could you please indicate what next steps I should take to have more > > > eyes on the unreviewed patches? Only 4 out of 11 patches remain > > > unreviewed. > > > > Looks like we're waiting on Thierry (again). > > > > This has been a common theme over the past few months. > > > > Perhaps he has changed employer/project? > > My work on PWM is purely done in my spare time. I don't get paid for any > of it. I currently have two kids that need home-schooling, as many > others probably do, and I have a full time job doing non-PWM related > things. As a result my spare time is close to nil these days.
This is no different to many others. I too am not paid for this work, but it's still my responsibly to ensure a reply within a reasonable amount of time.
We can all appreciate that the latest situation has exacerbated issues, but a reasonable level of PWM participation, blocking various patch-sets has been lacking for months before we'd even heard of Covid-19 [0].
If you need help, just ask for it. I am willing to step up and review patches if you're overloaded. Uwe is already listed as a designated reviewer. Perhaps between the 3 of us we can work something out in order to reduce the latency.
[0] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-pwm/list/
> I very much appreciate all the effort that others have spent in getting > this reviewed. I haven't been able to keep a very close eye on this, but > even the latest versions have some comments, so I didn't consider this > ready yet. If that's changed and everybody's okay with the changes, then > I can apply this to for-next. We haven't got all that much time left > before the merge window and I had hoped this would be ready earlier so > that we'd have more time for this in linux-next. But I'd be willing to > at least give it a try. If it starts to look like there are going to be > issues with this I can always back them out and we can have another go > next release.
If you would be so kind as to review the PWM patches, I can take them in but I can't do anything without your Ack.
-- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Linaro Services Technical Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
| |