| Message ID | 1545555435-24576-1-git-send-email-Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | drop useless LIST_HEAD | expand |
Why do you CC this to so many lists? On 23/12/2018, Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr> wrote: > Drop LIST_HEAD where the variable it declares is never used. > > --- > > drivers/dma/at_hdmac.c | 5 ----- > drivers/dma/dw/core.c | 1 - > drivers/dma/pl330.c | 1 - > drivers/dma/sa11x0-dma.c | 2 -- > drivers/dma/st_fdma.c | 3 --- > drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_ib.c | 1 - > drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/resource_tracker.c | 5 ----- > drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tc.c | 3 --- > drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlxsw/spectrum.c | 1 - > drivers/net/wireless/st/cw1200/queue.c | 1 - > drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_nvme.c | 2 -- > drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_scsi.c | 2 -- > drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c | 1 - > drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c | 1 - > drivers/xen/xenbus/xenbus_dev_frontend.c | 2 -- > fs/btrfs/relocation.c | 1 - > fs/nfs/nfs4client.c | 1 - > fs/nfsd/nfs4layouts.c | 1 - > fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c | 1 - > fs/xfs/xfs_fsops.c | 1 - > 20 files changed, 36 deletions(-) >
On Sun, 23 Dec 2018, Tom Psyborg wrote: > Why do you CC this to so many lists? Because the different files are in different subsystems. The cover letter goes to a list for each file, or to a person if there is no list. The patches go to the people and lists associated with the affected files. julia > > On 23/12/2018, Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr> wrote: > > Drop LIST_HEAD where the variable it declares is never used. > > > > --- > > > > drivers/dma/at_hdmac.c | 5 ----- > > drivers/dma/dw/core.c | 1 - > > drivers/dma/pl330.c | 1 - > > drivers/dma/sa11x0-dma.c | 2 -- > > drivers/dma/st_fdma.c | 3 --- > > drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_ib.c | 1 - > > drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/resource_tracker.c | 5 ----- > > drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tc.c | 3 --- > > drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlxsw/spectrum.c | 1 - > > drivers/net/wireless/st/cw1200/queue.c | 1 - > > drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_nvme.c | 2 -- > > drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_scsi.c | 2 -- > > drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c | 1 - > > drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c | 1 - > > drivers/xen/xenbus/xenbus_dev_frontend.c | 2 -- > > fs/btrfs/relocation.c | 1 - > > fs/nfs/nfs4client.c | 1 - > > fs/nfsd/nfs4layouts.c | 1 - > > fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c | 1 - > > fs/xfs/xfs_fsops.c | 1 - > > 20 files changed, 36 deletions(-) > > >
there was discussion about this just some days ago. CC 4-5 lists is more than enough On 23/12/2018, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> wrote: > > > On Sun, 23 Dec 2018, Tom Psyborg wrote: > >> Why do you CC this to so many lists? > > Because the different files are in different subsystems. The cover letter > goes to a list for each file, or to a person if there is no list. The > patches go to the people and lists associated with the affected files. > > julia > >> >> On 23/12/2018, Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr> wrote: >> > Drop LIST_HEAD where the variable it declares is never used. >> > >> > --- >> > >> > drivers/dma/at_hdmac.c | 5 ----- >> > drivers/dma/dw/core.c | 1 - >> > drivers/dma/pl330.c | 1 - >> > drivers/dma/sa11x0-dma.c | 2 -- >> > drivers/dma/st_fdma.c | 3 --- >> > drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_ib.c | 1 - >> > drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/resource_tracker.c | 5 ----- >> > drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tc.c | 3 --- >> > drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlxsw/spectrum.c | 1 - >> > drivers/net/wireless/st/cw1200/queue.c | 1 - >> > drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_nvme.c | 2 -- >> > drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_scsi.c | 2 -- >> > drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c | 1 - >> > drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c | 1 - >> > drivers/xen/xenbus/xenbus_dev_frontend.c | 2 -- >> > fs/btrfs/relocation.c | 1 - >> > fs/nfs/nfs4client.c | 1 - >> > fs/nfsd/nfs4layouts.c | 1 - >> > fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c | 1 - >> > fs/xfs/xfs_fsops.c | 1 - >> > 20 files changed, 36 deletions(-) >> > >> >
On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 11:12:20PM +0100, Tom Psyborg wrote: > there was discussion about this just some days ago. CC 4-5 lists is > more than enough > I don't know who you were discussing this with... You should CC the 0th patch to all the mailinglists. That much is a clear rule. For the rest, Julia's position is the more conservative one. I was in a conversation in RL and they were like, "CC everyone for all the patches". It depends on the context, of course. If the patches are dependent on each other then you *have* to CC everyone for everything. If we really have other clear rules, then it should be encoded into get_maintainer.pl so that it's automatic. My other question is why do the linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org people feel like they need to be CC'd about every driver??? I always remove them from the CC list unless it's an arch/arm issue. regards, dan carpenter PS: Please, no more top posting.
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 04:40:55PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 11:12:20PM +0100, Tom Psyborg wrote: > > there was discussion about this just some days ago. CC 4-5 lists is > > more than enough > > > > I don't know who you were discussing this with... > > You should CC the 0th patch to all the mailinglists. That much is a > clear rule. > > For the rest, Julia's position is the more conservative one. I was in > a conversation in RL and they were like, "CC everyone for all the > patches". It depends on the context, of course. If the patches are > dependent on each other then you *have* to CC everyone for everything. Agreed. Ms. Lawall, sending "Cover letter + all relevant XFS patches" (as you did) was exactly the right thing for us xfs types. :) For that matter, we prefer to receive through linux-xfs more patches than necessary (one can send the entire series if one is unsure) than to go wanting for more context. --D > If we really have other clear rules, then it should be encoded into > get_maintainer.pl so that it's automatic. > > My other question is why do the linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > people feel like they need to be CC'd about every driver??? I always > remove them from the CC list unless it's an arch/arm issue. > > regards, > dan carpenter > > PS: Please, no more top posting. >
On Fri, 28 Dec 2018, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 04:40:55PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 11:12:20PM +0100, Tom Psyborg wrote: > > > there was discussion about this just some days ago. CC 4-5 lists is > > > more than enough > > > > > > > I don't know who you were discussing this with... > > > > You should CC the 0th patch to all the mailinglists. That much is a > > clear rule. > > > > For the rest, Julia's position is the more conservative one. I was in > > a conversation in RL and they were like, "CC everyone for all the > > patches". It depends on the context, of course. If the patches are > > dependent on each other then you *have* to CC everyone for everything. > > Agreed. Ms. Lawall, sending "Cover letter + all relevant XFS patches" > (as you did) was exactly the right thing for us xfs types. :) > > For that matter, we prefer to receive through linux-xfs more patches > than necessary (one can send the entire series if one is unsure) than to > go wanting for more context. Thanks for the confirmation. I was planning to ignore the 4-5 advice, because there is no way in this case to make a meaningful 4-5 list suggestion - it's either all or nothing. But 20 patches at once is perhaps a lot as well. In this case, I just wanted to get rid of the whole issue at once. julia