linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Suggest pr_<level> over printk(KERN

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, 14 Mar 2012 09:45:20 -0400
From:	Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Suggest pr_<level> over printk(KERN_<LEVEL>

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 06:05:36AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> Patchwork queues are pretty useless when patches entered
> do not have their status updated for long periods.
> 
> The patch I sent in August 2011 shows "new" rather than
> have an appropriate status.
> 
> If you actually use patchwork, though it seems you don't,
> I think you should just mark every patch that's new as
> rejected and start over.

I use it, but not in the way you think I should be using it.  Your not
getting to your will on other kernel developers is what this thread is
all all about, ultimately.

I don't get to work on ext4 full time, and so every minute I put on it
has to not a be a waste of time.  This includes updating status
messages for patches that aren't obviously not applicable, or
superceded, but rather something that I might get to look at later.

	    	       		      	      - Ted
--
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/