linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH 00/14] eeprom: at24: driver rework and at24cs/at24mac support

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, 8 Jun 2016 10:45:47 +0200
From:	Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
To:	Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
Cc:	linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
	Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
	Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
	GregKH <greg@...ah.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 00/14] eeprom: at24: driver rework and
 at24cs/at24mac support


> sorry for that. I always resend after a week without response - just
> as suggested in Documentation/SubmittingPatches.

Wow, do I really have to tell you these things?

* It doesn't suggest to do that. It suggests to wait *a minimum* a week if
  you yourself considered doing that.

* A ping is more lightweight than resending 14 patches

* You *know* the lag in the i2c patch review. How should a reference to
  SubmittingPatches help the situation?

Needless to say, I could have reviewed a patch now instead of uncovering
wrong/sloppy readings of SubmittingPatches which I don't want to spread :(


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)