linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 11/21] mfd: use devm_irq_of_parse_and

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: <53A178AD.3060003@dev.rtsoft.ru>
Date:	Wed, 18 Jun 2014 15:31:57 +0400
From:	Nikita Yushchenko <nyushchenko@....rtsoft.ru>
To:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
CC:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	lugovskoy@....rtsoft.ru
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/21] mfd: use devm_irq_of_parse_and_map() where appropriate

>> Hmm...  probably it was too early to apply this?  I was just going
>> to prepare v2, based on discussion...
>
> Which discussion?

One you are replying in?

https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/4/136

>> Also, applying only 11/21, without 01/21, will just cause build errors ...
>
> CC'ing me on this patch alone when you know you have build
> dependencies on other patches in the set is a bad idea.  Failing to
> mention that you wanted the patch to be handled in a special and/or
> unconventional way is an even worse idea.
>
> How are you expecting this patch(-set) to be handled?

Sorry but I did not CC you this patch.

I sent entire patchset to mailing lists and to maintainers of IRQ and 
device tree subsystems.
I used git send-email, and all mails went out to the same recipients.
Recipient addresses extracted using scripts/get_maintainer.pl applied to 
the "main" patch of the patchset.
I did not sent entire patchset to maintainers of individual changed 
drivers because this makes recipient address too big and too much looks 
like spamming.
I did not send individual patches to individual addresses to avoid cases 
of partially-applied patchset that will just break things (actually this 
is what happened with 11/21)

I'm quite sorry if I did things wrong, it was my first attempt to sent 
patchset with tree-wide fixes. However, I don't see what I've done 
wrong... any hints on that will be appreciated.

Nikita

--
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/