linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] ASoC: ux500: Do not clear state if already idle

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, 8 May 2013 12:04:51 +0100
From:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:	Fabio Baltieri <fabio.baltieri@...aro.org>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	alsa-devel@...a-project.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Ola Lilja <ola.o.lilja@...ricsson.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] ASoC: ux500: Do not clear state if already idle

On Wed, 08 May 2013, Mark Brown wrote:

> On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 10:39:14AM +0200, Fabio Baltieri wrote:
> > As enable_msp gets called only after some audio data has been received,
> > if the userspace closes the device before sending any data it causes
> > ux500_msp_i2s_close to clear device state even if it was not previously
> > initialized.
> 
> Ugh, please don't do stuff like this - you're posting an individual
> revision of a patch buried in the middle of a thread.  This just makes
> things hard to follow and error prone.  Repost the patch series

It's so much more convenient to do it this way. Re-sending entire
patch-sets for small fixups is clumsy and annoying at best. Creating
much more churn than is actually required. Sending patches again
signally i.e. not as a reply to the original [PATCH x/x], would be
even more prone to error.

Personally, I like to get the niggles and fixups out of the way using
this method, then send the entire patch-set again, complete with all
of the reaped Acks once there are significant fixes or when I believe
it to be finished and ready for applying.

Surely most people have their mail setup as threaded? Then the
time-line and subsequent patch versions are very easy to follow aren't
they? I get a nice trace like this:

> <date> Fabio Baltieri    (  0) ├>[PATCH 2/6] ASoC: ux500: <snip>
> <date> To Fabio Baltieri (  0) │└>
> <date> Fabio Baltieri    (  0) │ └>[PATCH v2 2/6] ASoC:   <snip>

... or even better would be to reply to the original one, then
subsequent versions won't be "buried in the thread" per say:

> <date> Fabio Baltieri    (  0) ├>[PATCH 2/6] ASoC: ux500: <snip>
> <date> Fabio Baltieri    (  0) │ └>[PATCH v2 2/6] ASoC:   <snip>
> <date> To Fabio Baltieri (  0) │->

> or wait until what can be applied is applied then repost.

Taking patches out-of-order, or 'willy-nilly', is asking for trouble.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
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/