linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] NT synchronization primitive driver

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: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 19:37:01 -0600
From: Elizabeth Figura <zfigura@...eweavers.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-api@...r.kernel.org, wine-devel@...ehq.org,
 André Almeida <andrealmeid@...lia.com>,
 Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>, Arkadiusz Hiler <ahiler@...eweavers.com>,
 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] NT synchronization primitive driver

On Tuesday, 23 January 2024 18:59:35 CST Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 06:40:19PM -0600, Elizabeth Figura wrote:
> > == Patches ==
> > 
> > This is the first part of a 32-patch series. The series comprises 17 patches
> > which contain the actual implementation, 13 which provide self-tests, 1 to
> > update the MAINTAINERS file, and 1 to add API documentation.
> 
> 32 patches?  I only see 9 here, why not submit them all?

Because Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst makes a point of asking people not to submit large patch series (and it matches the expectation of other projects I've worked with—that patches would be submitted and reviewed a few at a time). I suppose I've misunderstood that advice, though.

I'll resend with the entire series. Sorry for the noise.