On 7/11/18 12:50 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 8:30 PM, Jens Axboe axboe@kernel.dk wrote:
On 7/11/18 10:45 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 09:40:58AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 10:36:40AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
Makes the macros resilient against if {} else {} blocks right afterwards.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter daniel.vetter@intel.com Cc: Tejun Heo tj@kernel.org Cc: Jens Axboe axboe@kernel.dk Cc: Shaohua Li shli@fb.com Cc: Kate Stewart kstewart@linuxfoundation.org Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: Joseph Qi joseph.qi@linux.alibaba.com Cc: Daniel Vetter daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch Cc: Arnd Bergmann arnd@arndb.de
Acked-by: Tejun Heo tj@kernel.org
Jens, it'd probably be best to route this through block tree.
Oops, this requires an earlier patch to move the for_each_if def to a common header and should be routed together.
Yeah, this is a problem with the submission.
Always (ALWAYS) CC folks on at least the cover letter and generic earlier patches. Getting just one patch sent like this is mostly useless, and causes more harm than good.
Ime sending a patch with more than 20 or so recipients means it gets stuck everywhere in moderation queues. Or outright spam filters. I thought the correct way to do this is to cc: mailing lists (lkml has them all), but apparently that's not how it's done. Despite that all the patch series I get never have the cover letter addressed to me either.
So what's the magic way to make this possible?
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).