linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V1 2/3] MFD: da9052: Add new DA9053 BC chip variant

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 25 Feb 2014 21:15:55 +0900
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:	"Opensource [Anthony Olech]" <anthony.olech.opensource@...semi.com>,
	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Dajun Chen <david.chen@...semi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 2/3] MFD: da9052: Add new DA9053 BC chip variant

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:50:36AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:

> I am. The trouble with basing your patches against -next is that it's
> not stable, in that it is rebuilt every day. If your patches are
> dependant on commits which haven't reached Mainline yet, then you
> should rebase on the subsystem tree which they are contained in. All
> patches in -next should be based on an -rc or a released kernel version.

The advice here is usually that sending against -next is a good proxy
for sending against the individual tree without having to figure out all
the different trees - almost all of the time the effect is the same.
This only applies when sending patches via e-mail, for git pulls it's an
absolute no of course.

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