linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] ASoC: codecs: Enable AB8500 CODEC for Device Tree

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]

Message-ID: <20120821134013.GG7995@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Date:	Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:40:13 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:	Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
	linus.walleij@...ricsson.com, arnd@...db.de,
	STEricsson_nomadik_linux@...t.st.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] ASoC: codecs: Enable AB8500 CODEC for Device Tree

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 01:58:12PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 01:39:51PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

> > The bit I quoted is the main example, you're including random mail
> > headers in the body of the mail.

> They're not mail headers per-say, they're `git format-patch` headers.
> I thought this was acceptable for single patches, hence why I've done
> it lots of times and had no complaints (until now).

> If there are some changes required in a single patch, I usually fix
> it up, create a patch with `git format-patch` and send it as a reply
> to either the original patch in the series or the mail containing the
> suggestion. If this is wrong please educate me as I thought this was

If you're going to do this send the patch properly in the same way
patches are normally sent.  Take a step back and think about this for a
minute - why would it be a good idea to send these incremental patches
in a different format which requires the person applying the patch to
hand edit things to strip out the noise?

> acceptable, as I thought it would be less pain than sending the
> entire patch-set again for just one change?

It makes it harder to work out which versions of things to apply and
causes issues for tools when doing things like applying from a mailbox.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)