Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/12] blk: use for_each_if
To:     Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        DRI Development <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>,
        Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Joseph Qi <joseph.qi@linux.alibaba.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
References: <20180709083650.23549-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
 <20180709083650.23549-2-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
 <20180711164058.GC72677@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
 <20180711164536.GD72677@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
 <965184f9-e5ed-3c8b-bfd7-a033a252371b@kernel.dk>
 <CAKMK7uE5aJq-1wd0ZOhwFaTy3iKMAZsfdAf=Tw+eGxtCmfcVQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <85df8c40-dac9-5f97-f81a-6de061cfdfa8@kernel.dk>
 <20180711200641.GJ72677@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
 <CAKMK7uGBWwbuSr7k83w0JAQ9bUKYvreYCJpBwpEqcUe3DZVrrQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Message-ID: <5bacce40-d29d-8eaf-f3bb-2ac2889bbeb0@kernel.dk>
Date:   Wed, 11 Jul 2018 15:13:00 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKMK7uGBWwbuSr7k83w0JAQ9bUKYvreYCJpBwpEqcUe3DZVrrQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 7/11/18 3:08 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 10:06 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 01:31:51PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> I don't think there's a git easy way of sending it out outside of
>>> just ensuring that everybody is CC'ed on everything. I don't mind
>>> that at all. I don't subscribe to lkml, and the patches weren't
>>> sent to linux-block. Hence all I see is this stand-alone patch,
>>> and logic would dictate that it's stand-alone (but it isn't).
> 
> Hm yeah I forgot to add linux-block. But others where there's no
> dedicated list (or get_maintainers.pl didn't have one) also complained
> about not getting Cc'ed, and I can't Cc everyone for sweeping changes.

I don't personally see a problem with just CC'ing everyone.

>> What I sometimes do is including a short blurb on each patch giving
>> the overview and action hints (e.g. this is part of patchset doing XYZ
>> and should be routed such and such).  It's a bit redundant but has
>> worked pretty well for patchsets with dependenat & sweeping changes.
> 
> Yeah I guess I can just copypaste/summarize patch 1 to all the
> subsequent patches, sounds like the best option.

Another approach might be to submit the first independent patch
separately. Once that's in the kernel, you can send out the rest
as independent patches instead of doing a cross-kernel series that
all depend on one single patch. Seems to me that's where you run
into issues, and it can be avoided quite easily.

-- 
Jens Axboe