linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Intel(R) MEI 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <AANLkTi=7_WH_7t1SPJW4rKxz380iA7RSLKrYWeT8HTce@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 10 Feb 2011 21:14:14 +0200
From:	Tomas Winkler <tomasw@...il.com>
To:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
Cc:	Oren Weil <oren.jer.weil@...el.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, david@...dhou.se,
	david.woodhouse@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Intel(R) MEI Driver

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 08:43:57PM +0200, Tomas Winkler wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 01:54:54AM -0800, Oren Weil wrote:
>> >> Intel(R) Management Engine Interface (Intel(R) MEI) Driver
>> >> ==========================================================
>> >>
>> >> This patch contains a new Intel driver for the Linux kernel: The Intel(R) MEI Driver.
>> >
>> > This patch?  What patch, there is no patch here.
>> >
>> > You sent out 13 emails with the same exact Subject line, which is not
>> > acceptable at all, and mighty confusing.
>> >
>> >> This set of patches is for review purposes; the driver code
>> >> for pull is in the David Woodhouse public git repository:
>> >> http://git.infradead.org/linux-2.6-mei.git
>> >
>> > No, we need these as patches, not as a pull request.  Please work on
>> > fixing up your individual patches, that's the only way this is going to
>> > be accepted.
>>
>> There was a suggestion of splitting the driver into per file patches
>> to be reviewable  rather then creating gigantic driver patch.
>> I personally would prefer the later one  would happy to here any other
>> suggestions how to split driver.
>
> Per-file is ok, but just provide proper documentation, don't break the
> build, and do it the correct way, like everyone else does every day.
> This isn't something new people...

I was actually looking into Documentation/SubmittingDrivers and
SubmittingPatches and there is much suggestion how to handle that.
I'll spell it  just make sure I understand correctly, we do per file
patches with Kconfig + Makefile patch as last in the series so the
build won't break....


Thanks
Tomas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/