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]

Message-ID: <20130508113124.GH7478@sirena.org.uk>
Date:	Wed, 8 May 2013 12:31:24 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.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, May 08, 2013 at 12:04:51PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 08 May 2013, Mark Brown wrote:

> > 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
> even more prone to error.

Then consider what happens as soon as you get more than one update to
the patch, or there's any meaningful discussion on the patches - picking
out which of many versions in bifurcating threads.  You shouldn't even
assume that followups to the patches are being read, for example if it's
clear that there's revision required and it's all device specific
discussion rather than framework stuff I'll often just stop reading the
thread and wait for the respost.

> 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

Of course, yes - that's a bad idea.

> 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) │->

This doesn't work nearly so well once you start getting meaningful
discussion, multiple branches on the thread and indentation can make it
hard to spot where the latest patch is and it's still more effort to
find the latest version.

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

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

We've been through this repeatedly.  If your early patches won't work
without the later patches then you need to improve your early patches so
they stand alone.  Asking people to re-review an enormous patch series
because of a change at the end isn't helpful

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