linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] ASoC: atmel-ssc: remove clk_disable

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:	Thu, 18 Jul 2013 11:58:46 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	boris brezillon <b.brezillon@...rkiz.com>
Cc:	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
	Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@...el.com>,
	Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] ASoC: atmel-ssc: remove clk_disable_unprepare
 call from critical section

On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 12:21:38PM +0200, boris brezillon wrote:

> I can send you the whole series if you want (already sent to LKML
> and LAKML).

> But I'd like to understand who I should send patches from this series to.

When you send me patch 5/5 with no other information on the rest of the
series I've no idea if there's any dependencies on the other code or
anything like that.  The key thing here is to make sure the people
getting the patch can understand the interdependencies somehow.

If you're sending a bunch of unrelated changes with no dependencies
you're better off sending them all separately rather than as a part of a
series.

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