Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 20 Jul 2023 14:42:46 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To:     Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@gmail.com>
Cc:     corbet@lwn.net, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>, workflows@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux@leemhuis.info, kvalo@kernel.org,
        benjamin.poirier@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH docs v3] docs: maintainer: document expectations of
 small time maintainers
Message-ID: <20230720144246.7e3507d1@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <50164116-9d12-698d-f552-96b52c718749@gmail.com>
References: <20230719183225.1827100-1-kuba@kernel.org>
        <50164116-9d12-698d-f552-96b52c718749@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 19:23:56 +0100 Edward Cree wrote:
> Does this apply even to "checkpatch cleanup patch spam", where other patches
>  sprayed from the same source (perhaps against other drivers) have already
>  been nacked as worthless churn? 

For networking you can check patchwork, if it's already marked
as rejected or such - there's no need to respond.

> I've generally been assuming I can ignore those, do I need to make
> sure to explicitly respond with typically a repeat of what's already
> been said elsewhere?

Repeating the same thing over and over is sadly a part of being
a maintainer, tho.