linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] mfd: remove obsolete ti-ssp driver

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: <20140226220004.GQ9195@lee--X1>
Date:	Wed, 26 Feb 2014 22:00:04 +0000
From:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	davinci-linux-open-source@...ux.davincidsp.com,
	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...prootsystems.com>,
	Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Cyril Chemparathy <cyril@...com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] mfd: remove obsolete ti-ssp driver

> > > The tnetv107x platform is getting removed, so this driver
> > > is not needed any more.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> > > Cc: Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>
> > > Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/mfd/Kconfig  |  11 --
> > >  drivers/mfd/Makefile |   1 -
> > >  drivers/mfd/ti-ssp.c | 465 ---------------------------------------------------
> > >  3 files changed, 477 deletions(-)
> > >  delete mode 100644 drivers/mfd/ti-ssp.c
> > 
> > Applied, thanks.
> 
> This makes me wonder whether you apply any patch you receive via email,
> or whether you read the covering email first.

I did (miss-)read the cover letter first.

> Arnd's 0/5 email said:
> 
> 	However, I'm looking for an Ack from
> 	Cyril Chemparathy and Sekhar Nori first, to be sure we
> 	won't need this code in the future.

I read this to mean "looking for an Ack from Cyril and Sekhar for
patches which are due to go in via a different tree (ARM-SoC?)".

My apologies for misreading. Patch removed from MFD -next until I get
a further nod.

> This is exactly the reason why I'd now recommend that if people want to
> send out patches which they don't intend maintainers to take, that they
> use "[PATCH RFC" in the subject _and_ they make sure that the patch can't
> be trivially applied.  That means maintainers have to (a) not notice the
> RFC in the subject, and _then_ they have to intentionally fix the patch
> before applying.  Both taken together will be sufficient deterrent for
> this kind of mistake happening.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics 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/