linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] mfd: wm8994-core: don't split lines unnecessarily

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, 5 Oct 2016 10:10:42 +0100
From:   Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:     linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
        patches@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] mfd: wm8994-core: don't split lines unnecessarily

On Wed, 05 Oct 2016, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 05-10-16, 09:49, Lee Jones wrote:
> > You are experienced enough to know better than this.
> 
> :)
> 
> > a) Contentless pings have never been acceptable.  If you genuinely
> > think a patch has been forgotten you should resubmit with a
> > [RESEND]. That is their entire purpose.
> 
> Sure, but I really believe a light *ping* is much better than a complete resend
> to start with. It generates far less noise.

Contentless pings are generally not accepted.

It also has the unfortunate side-effect of placing your patches at the
top of the pile, and since I process patches in reverse chronological
order, you just put yourself at the back of the list. ;)

--
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog