linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1

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:	Fri, 16 Jan 2015 12:05:18 +0000
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
	"grant.likely@...aro.org" <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
	"hanjun.guo@...aro.org" <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
	"graeme.gregory@...aro.org" <graeme.gregory@...aro.org>,
	Sudeep Holla <Sudeep.Holla@....com>,
	"jcm@...hat.com" <jcm@...hat.com>,
	Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@....com>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
	Charles Garcia-Tobin <Charles.Garcia-Tobin@....com>,
	"phoenix.liyi@...wei.com" <phoenix.liyi@...wei.com>,
	Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>,
	"suravee.suthikulpanit@....com" <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>,
	Yijing Wang <wangyijing@...wei.com>,
	ACPI Devel Mailing List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linaro-acpi <linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1

On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 10:10:34AM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:

> Indeed, keeping the series as one thread is better. Apart from a
> slightly less misleading subject, I suggest Hanjun that he passes each
> patch via get_maintainer.pl and adds the corresponding Cc: lines to the
> commit log. I think that's a clearer way keep track of who needs to
> ack/review the patches.

I'm not saying stop sending them as part of this series, I'm saying it
might help to get people to look at them if they were also sent
disassociated from it - in the situations where I end up ignoring things
that look controversial but unexciting for my bit of it I know I won't
even bother opening the e-mails since I know it's just going to get
resent anyway quite often with revisions from whatever makes the rest of
the series controversial, I expect others will do the same.

Actually, another thing that might help would be if you and/or Will were
to prod the relevant people for review, letting them know that the
controversy isn't likely to affect their bits.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)