linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/2] regulator: bd9571mwv: Add support for toggle power switches

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 13 May 2018 11:27:26 +0900
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@...il.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/2] regulator: bd9571mwv: Add support for toggle
 power switches

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:13:56PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Wed 2018-04-18 15:00:41, Mark Brown wrote:

> > 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 

> If I follow the logs right, there was one month before ping. That
> seems pretty reasonable time.

Right, but the content free bit still applies (as does the bit about
resending which is the main actionable bit for people).  The two go hand
in hand so often that I just wrote the one thing for both.

> > 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

> Yep, and sending content free complains about pings also adds to the
> main volume :-(.

They're not content free.  They're telling people that if it looks like
their patch has fallen through the cracks then they need to resend their
patch and why, without that people (especially newer contributors) might
not be clear about what to do.

> Anyway, last time I sent you a patch... you _had_ time to complain
> that I'm pinging too often, but you apparently did not have time to
> look at the patch. That patch would have been in time for v4.16-rc1
> IIRC.

If that's the tlv320dac33 patch you sent a followup in the middle of the
thread with what you said was a current version or something but never
actually sent that version as a regular patch submission.  You'd also
managed to not have the ASoC on the front of the patch which pushes it
to the bottom of the review queue, it won't turn up when I look in in my
inbox for ASoC patches.

Now, I for whatever reason didn't explicitly tell you I was expecting a
resend so you didn't explicitly know that this was what was going on
which is a good example of why letting people know what's going on is a
good idea.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)