linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] devicetree: sound: add binding for WM8974 codec

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:	Wed, 16 Dec 2015 18:48:10 +0000
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Måns Rullgård <mans@...sr.com>
Cc:	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] devicetree: sound: add binding for WM8974 codec

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 01:54:20PM +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> writes:

> > I need the patch in a form I can apply.

> I assumed your email client had some way of displaying the message I
> replied to.  Guess I was wrong.

My workflow for reviewing and applying patches is based around my inbox,
as are most review flows in the kernel - things that aren't in my inbox
*might* get looked at but it's unreliable.

> > You can't blindly rely on get_maintainers, it's prone to both false
> > positives (CCing too many people, especially if you enable git matching
> > when it often starts spamming people who are just doing global cleanups)
> > and false negatives (if you don't enable git matching and it misses
> > people who care about a specific driver).

> So in short, I'm supposed to magically divine who wants to see what.

You're supposed to do like SubmittingPatches suggests make a judgement
call based on things like looking at MAINTAINERS and the people that git
shows are reviewing and applying patches or otherwise seem relevant -
it's not really something that can be fully automated (for example, it
might make sense to CC someone who worked on the specific thing you're
changing even if they don't commonly review the file as a whole).

Looking at git history will also help you ensure that the style you're
presenting your changes in (for example things like the subject line)
matches the general style people are using.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)