linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] ASoC: codecs: Enable AB8500 CODEC for Device Tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 21 Aug 2012 13:58:12 +0100
From:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc:	Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
	linus.walleij@...ricsson.com, arnd@...db.de,
	STEricsson_nomadik_linux@...t.st.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] ASoC: codecs: Enable AB8500 CODEC for Device Tree

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 01:39:51PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:51:24PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 03:36:53PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> > > > From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
> > > > Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 08:50:05 +0100
> 
> > > Please resend this series with all the acks you've got rather than
> > > mixing incremental updates in like this.
> 
> > I'm waiting until I have a few more Acks before I resend the entire
> > patch-set again. Actually it's you and one other that I'm waiting for
> > to review (and Ack as necessary) the ones requested by Linus, then 
> > resend with the corrections.
> 
> Well, I'm the person who's going to apply the patches so I'm unlikely
> to ack them...  I was waiting for arch/arm review before I looked at

I have all of Linus' Acks. The only ones missing are yours and Ola's,
but I think Ola is on vacation still, so he's asked Roger to do it.
I don't know if you saw, but Linus has placed lots of Acked-by's which
are dependent on your say-so, hence why I was waiting for your response.

> them due to the number of resends.

Bingo, thus why I was dubious about resending the entire patch-set too
prematurely.

> > > Please also send patches in
> > > the format documented in SubmittingPatches.
> 
> > That's a big document, most of which I guess I'm adhering to. Care to
> > be a little more specific?
> 
> The bit I quoted is the main example, you're including random mail
> headers in the body of the mail.

They're not mail headers per-say, they're `git format-patch` headers.
I thought this was acceptable for single patches, hence why I've done
it lots of times and had no complaints (until now).

If there are some changes required in a single patch, I usually fix
it up, create a patch with `git format-patch` and send it as a reply
to either the original patch in the series or the mail containing the
suggestion. If this is wrong please educate me as I thought this was
acceptable, as I thought it would be less pain than sending the
entire patch-set again for just one change?

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/