[PATCH 02/12] blk: use for_each_if

[Jens Axboe]

On 7/11/18 12:50 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 8:30 PM, Jens Axboe <axboe at 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 at intel.com>
>>>>> Cc: Tejun Heo <tj at kernel.org>
>>>>> Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe at kernel.dk>
>>>>> Cc: Shaohua Li <shli at fb.com>
>>>>> Cc: Kate Stewart <kstewart at linuxfoundation.org>
>>>>> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh at linuxfoundation.org>
>>>>> Cc: Joseph Qi <joseph.qi at linux.alibaba.com>
>>>>> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch>
>>>>> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb.de>
>>>>
>>>> Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj at 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).

-- 
Jens Axboe