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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210714091747.2814370-1-morbo@google.com> <20210726201924.3202278-1-morbo@google.com>
 <20210726201924.3202278-2-morbo@google.com> <c965006c-88e1-3265-eb9c-76dc0bbcb733@kernel.org>
 <YP+ZOx8BETgufxBS@kroah.com> <CAGG=3QX68umw5Ws9_HuGkqoTNT=Q1+QB7YpSaqw3R_kPsbxwsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <YP+ql3QFYnefR/Cf@kroah.com> <CAKwvOdm62a7mrLZb_eciUO-HZj7m3cjgfvtQ=EqRy9Nh0rZOPg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKwvOdm62a7mrLZb_eciUO-HZj7m3cjgfvtQ=EqRy9Nh0rZOPg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Jul 2021 10:42:55 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKwvOd=6fcUhDf5WXXZ8xnM-Nt91OyXafD1=kDCMXt_wwix9OA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] base: mark 'no_warn' as unused
To:     Bill Wendling <morbo@google.com>
Cc:     Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 10:39 AM Nick Desaulniers
<ndesaulniers@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 11:41 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 11:15:52PM -0700, Bill Wendling wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 10:27 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 01:47:33PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > > > > + Greg and Rafael as the maintainer and reviewer of drivers/base/module.c
> > > > > respectively, drop everyone else.
> > > >
> > > > Odd no one cc:ed us originally, I guess they didn't want the patch ever
> > > > merged?  :(

Oh, I just noticed this patch was part of a series.  Perhaps you ran
get_maintainer.pl on one patch of the series, and used that list for
all patches in the series?  Since these patches are orthogonal (ie.
they don't depend on any order relative to one another; they can go in
separately via different trees and their maintainers) consider not
using a series.  That should save you from having to write a TPS
Report^W^Wcover letter.
-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers