[PATCH 02/12] blk: use for_each_if

[Jens Axboe]

On 7/12/18 12:45 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-07-11 at 20:50 +0200, 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?
> 
> Jens' advice is crap.
> 
> There is no generic way to make this possible.

Nobody claimed there was. And the advice is perfectly fine,
sending out patches to folks that have hidden dependencies on other
patches is a no-go.

> BCC's don't work, series that touch multiple subsystems
> get rejected when the recipient list is too large.
> 
> I think you did it correctly.

Clearly that's not the case, regardless of what you think.

Thanks for your invaluable and useful feedback, sharing your vast
experience in patchsets with dependencies.

-- 
Jens Axboe