Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Coiby Xu <coiby.xu@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 1 Nov 2020 06:47:35 +0800
To:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
        Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@pmeerw.net>,
        "open list:IIO SUBSYSTEM AND DRIVERS" <linux-iio@vger.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/15] iio: accel: remove unnecessary CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
Message-ID: <20201031224735.atjih4opb6w57r6y@Rk>
References: <20201029074910.227859-1-coiby.xu@gmail.com>
 <20201029144007.77d967b0@archlinux>
 <CAHp75Vc829u6XPPA+eE=_AFZSPF+yVqT7nUXxtzkwx7-xLLrCg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201030143410.pbixjo2cllhd27zp@Rk>
 <20201031110511.515a2f0f@archlinux>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201031110511.515a2f0f@archlinux>
Precedence: bulk

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