Re: [PATCH] powerpc: disable MSI using new interface if possible

On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 19:29 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:

On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 14:06 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 17:41 -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:

quoted

On 04.03.2011 [12:05:29 +1100], Michael Ellerman wrote:

quoted

Cc: Me  :)

Sorry! I was in a hurry to get this out the door, my fault. Note, you
don't show up per scripts/get_maintainer.pl :)

No worries, though I will remember never to use get_maintainer.pl, it is
obviously utterly broken:

Blah, blah, stupid tool doesn't work exactly as I want,
and it doesn't credit me for my over 2 year old patches,
therefore it's not only stupid, it's broken...

I do not give two shits about being given "credit" for this horrible
code, but if someone changes it I may have input.

True my last patch may have been two years ago, but I _wrote the entire
file_, and essentially no one else has ever touched it.

$ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/msi.c
Benjamin Herrenschmidt [off-list ref] (supporter:LINUX FOR POWERPC...)
Paul Mackerras [off-list ref] (supporter:LINUX FOR POWERPC...)
Grant Likely [off-list ref] (maintainer:OPEN FIRMWARE AND...)
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org (open list:LINUX FOR POWERPC...)
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (open list)
devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org (open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND...)

If you don't like how it currently works, suggest
improvements.

I think I was suggesting that I should be in that list :)

In the life of this file there have been 553 lines changed (added or
deleted), of which I have written 551, and I signed off the other 2.

So I guess I'm suggesting that when someone has written a large number
of the changes to a file they should be CC'ed. I don't know what the cut
off for "large number" should be, but anything > 50% would seem
reasonable (in terms of lines, not commits).

How nice for you.  Last patch from you was 2 years ago.

Last patch from _anyone_ was 2 years ago. As much as I may have tried to
banish that code from my mind I can still remember some of the details,
even after 2 years :)

CC'ing inactive non named maintainers via git
history also draws complaints btw.

Yeah I can imagine. But that is a case of someone who is no longer
interested getting one extra email, ie. a false positive, whereas in
this case it's someone who does care _not_ seeing the patch, ie. a false
negative.

cheers