Subject: [PATCH v7 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1

From: [email-masked] (Hanjun Guo)
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 14:36:11 +0800

On 2015?01?16? 18:10, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 08:04:37PM +0000, Jason Cooper wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 07:02:20PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 06:23:47PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 04:26:20PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I'll get right to the point: Can we please have this series queued up
>>>>> for v3.20?
>>>
>>>> Before you even ask for this, please look at the patches and realise
>>>> that there is a complete lack of Reviewed-by tags on the code (well,
>>>> apart from trivial Kconfig changes). In addition, the series touches on
>>>> other subsystems like clocksource, irqchip, acpi and I don't see any
>>>> acks from the corresponding maintainers. So even if I wanted to merge
>>>> the series, there is no way it can be done without additional
>>>> reviews/acks. On the document (last patch), I'd like to see a statement
>>>
>>> There's probably a bit of a process problem here - these patches are all
>>> being posted as part of big and apparently controversial threads with
>>> subject lines in the form "ARM / ACPI:" so people could be forgiven for
>>> just not even reading the e-mails enough to notice changes to their
>>> subsystems.  Is it worth posting those patches separately more directly
>>> to the relevant maintainers?
>>
>> I think it's beneficial to post the entire series as one thread, but to
>> change the subject line of each patch to adequately reflect the affected
>> subsystem.
>
> Indeed, keeping the series as one thread is better. Apart from a
> slightly less misleading subject, I suggest Hanjun that he passes each
> patch via get_maintainer.pl and adds the corresponding Cc: lines to the
> commit log. I think that's a clearer way keep track of who needs to
> ack/review the patches.

I already checked all the patches with get_maintainer.pl, and CC the 
maintainers in the CC list, I will add the corresponding Cc: lines in
next version.

Thanks
Hanjun