Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751183AbdGMGNx (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 13 Jul 2017 02:13:53 -0400
Received: from mail-pg0-f49.google.com ([74.125.83.49]:36122 "EHLO
        mail-pg0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751115AbdGMGNv (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 13 Jul 2017 02:13:51 -0400
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] rtmutex: remove unnecessary adjust prio
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, corbet@lwn.net,
        "open list:LOCKING PRIMITIVES" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
References: <1499395922-542-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@linaro.org>
 <1499395922-542-3-git-send-email-alex.shi@linaro.org>
 <c97943ea-0972-49b5-49fd-3bf939d7c7ad@linaro.org>
 <20170712101449.26b47984@gandalf.local.home>
 <20170712163537.7ipr27jmvxmwjfqt@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Message-ID: <ce4ed6d3-49bc-dc6f-b0c3-a3a1296b68c7@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 14:13:45 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170712163537.7ipr27jmvxmwjfqt@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 780
Lines: 26



On 07/13/2017 12:35 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:14:49AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 22:39:24 +0800
>> Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Any comments for this little change? It's passed on 0day testing.
>>
>> I think the problem was that this was a third patch after two
>> documentation patches. Where, people put documentation review at the
>> bottom of their priority list.
>>
>> This should have been sent as separate patch on its own.
> 
> My problem was the sparse changelog, which forces me to think hard and
> thus is landed on the 'later' queue, which moves at glacial speeds.
> 

Yes, I should mentioned I didn't find out any reasons from the history
changelogs.

Thanks for reminder this! :)

Regards
Alex