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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20140226114135.GC31120@sirena.org.uk>
Date:	Wed, 26 Feb 2014 20:41:35 +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 Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 09:32:03AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:

> > It can be worth doing anyway with a subsystem that's actively developed
> > since sometimees the dependencies are the other way - the APIs in Linus'
> > tree may have gone away.

> Then what happens if the tree that your patch finally gets sucked into
> is pulled before the one you've written your code against? I'd say
> basing your code on -next is generally a bad idea.

Submitters should defintely at the very least be checking against the
subsystem tree (since that's what they're really submitting against) -
it's always annoying when someone submits code that either doesn't
apply or fails to build with the current tree.

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