[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v10 00/12] Convert PWM period and duty cycle to u64

[Guru Das Srinagesh]

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 02:48:04PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 02:00:12PM -0700, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 09:26:36PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 12:15:07PM -0700, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 02:47:03PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > > > This is a giant CC list.
> > > > 
> > > > Yes, this is because I received feedback [1] on an earlier patchset
> > > > directing me to add the reviewers of patches to the cover letter as
> > > > well so that they get some context for the patch.
> > > > ...
> > > > [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-pwm/msg11735.html
> > > 
> > > Strictly speaking I only asked for backlight maintainers to be Cc:ed.
> > > I was fairly careful to be specific since I'm aware there are a variety
> > > of differing habits when putting together the Cc: list for covering
> > > letters.
> > > 
> > > With the original patch header the purpose of the patch I was Cc:ed on
> > > was impossible to determine without the covering letter.
> > 
> > I suspect this might be the case for all the other reviewers as well -
> > that they also would appreciate context for the specific patch they are
> > being added to review.
> > 
> > I wasn't entirely sure what the convention was, so I applied your
> > suggestion to all the files. How do you suggest I handle this in my next
> > patchset? I fully agree that such a large CC list does look really
> > ungainly.
> 
> IHMO there should not be a mechanical convention. Instead your goal
> needs to be how to make it as easy as possible to review your patches.
> 
> Think about it this way: Each person in the To: of a patch (and maybe
> also Cc: depending on how you construct things) is a person you are
> asking to review and comment on the patch. If that person will find it
> easier to review the patch if they are included in the cover letter then
> either they should be included or you should improve the patch
> description of the patch itself (sometimes both).
> 
> Either way it is about optimizing the patchset for readability. More
> people read them than write them.

Thank you for the explanation! I shall keep your suggestions in mind
while sending out future patchsets.

Thank you.

Guru Das.