Re: merge struct block_device and struct hd_struct

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 18.11.2020 10:09, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 10:04:04AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 18.11.2020 09:58, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 09:56:11AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> since this isn't the first series from you recently spamming
>>>> xen-devel, may I ask that you don't Cc entire series to lists
>>>> which are involved with perhaps just one out of the many patches?
>>>> IMO Cc lists should be compiled on a per-patch basis; the cover
>>>> letter may of course be sent to the union of all of them.
>>>
>>> No way.  Individual CCs are completely broken as they don't provide
>>> the reviewer a context.
>>
>> That's the view of some people, but not all. Context can be easily
>> established by those who care going to one of the many archives on
>> which the entire series lands. Getting spammed, however, can't be
>> avoided by the dozens or hundreds of list subscribers.
> 
> kernel patches are never "spam", sorry, but for developers to try to
> determine which lists/maintainers want to see the whole series and which
> do not is impossible.
> 
> Patches in a series are easily deleted from sane mail clients with a
> single click/keystroke all at once, they aren't a problem that needs to
> be reduced in volume.

This doesn't scale, neither in the dimension of recipients nor in
the dimension of possible sources of such series.

While it may seem small, it's also a waste of resources to have mails
sent to hundreds of even thousands of people. So while from a
technical content perspective I surely agree with you saying 'kernel
patches are never "spam"', they still are from the perspective of
what "spam mail" originally means: Mail the recipients did not want
to receive.

Jan