On Thursday 30 April 2015 10:46:13 Mark Salter wrote: > On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 15:38 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 03:03:07PM +0100, Mark Salter wrote: > > > On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 14:33 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > > > Could you please send this to arm-soc as suggested by Will, with > > > > > > the > > > > > > relevant acks/reviews ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I sent it on Tuesday. Did it not show up? Is [email protected] the > > > > > correct > > > > > address? I got the cc: > > > > > > > > > > From: Mark Salter <[email protected]> > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > Cc: Mark Salter <[email protected]> > > > > > Subject: [PATCH V2] drivers: CCI: fix used_mask init in > > > > > validate_group() > > > > > Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 13:09:32 -0400 > > > > > Message-Id: <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > That's the right address, but that only goes to the maintainers, and > > > > doesn't get copied to any list. In future, please Cc linux-arm-kernel in > > > > addition. > > > > > > That's where I sent it originally. > > > > Sure, but it's good to Cc when sending to arm-soc so as to make it > > visible that the patches have been sent. Doing so avoids the necessity > > of queries like Suzuki's, and makes it possible for others to reply to > > the version sent to [email protected] in the case of conflicts or other > > issues. > > But why did it need to be sent to a private maintainer's list in the > first place? I think that the destination addresses of the original > posting was perfectly reasonable given output from get_maintainer.pl > and that sending me to a private list was an unnecessary hoop to > jump through.
The purpose of the [email protected] alias is for subarch maintainers to send us stuff, it's not really meant for normal developers, unless specifically advised by a maintainer. Each file we maintain through arm-soc normally belongs to one subarch, so we tend to not pick up any patches on the mailing list and instead wait for that subarch maintainer to pick them up and forward the changes to us. That model model breaks down to some degree for drivers/bus, in particular for stuff that is not specific to just one SoC. I have the patch in my todo list now, sorry about missing that earlier. We should probably come up with a better way to handle patches like this one. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
