linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 0/5] mfd: tps65218: Clean ups

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:   Fri, 16 Sep 2016 21:51:38 +0530
From:   Keerthy <a0393675@...com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC:     Keerthy <j-keerthy@...com>, <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        <tony@...mide.com>, <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, <gnurou@...il.com>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <t-kristo@...com>,
        <russ.dill@...com>, <d-gerlach@...com>,
        <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/5] mfd: tps65218: Clean ups



On Friday 16 September 2016 07:01 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 05:12:38PM +0530, Keerthy wrote:
>
>> Should i repost this series? I do not see this series in linux-next yet.
>
> Please don't send content free pings and please allow a reasonable time
> for review.  People get busy, go on holiday, attend conferences and so
> on so unless there is some reason for urgency (like critical bug fixes)
> please allow at least a couple of weeks for review.  If there have been
> review comments then people may be waiting for those to be addressed.

I should have been clearer.
The last Lee Jones conveyed that:

"I can't take this series yet, since it relies on a change which was
taken into Mark's Regulator tree"

https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/8/31/312

So wanted to check if i needed to re-base/repost this series again.
Sorry about the confusion i think that is because of $Subject goof up in 
the 0th patch of the series.

>
> Sending content free pings adds to the mail volume (if they are seen at
> all) which is often the problem and since they can't be reviewed
> directly if something has gone wrong you'll have to resend the patches
> anyway, though there are some other maintainers who like them - if in
> doubt look at how patches for the subsystem are normally handled.
>