linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] mfd: da9052: fix broken regulator probe

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:	Mon, 18 May 2015 11:51:59 +0200
From:	Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:	Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Support Opensource <support.opensource@...semi.com>,
	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
	Milo Kim <milo.kim@...com>,
	patches@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com,
	Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@...escale.com>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
	stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mfd: da9052: fix broken regulator probe

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 10:10:49AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Fri, 15 May 2015, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 08:19:43AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > On Wed, 13 May 2015, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 05:54:19PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 13 May 2015, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > > If you're looking for me to review something you need to send it to me,
> > > > > > and the chances of me looking at it are very much increased if there's a
> > > > > > relevant subject line.  I'm CCed (not even on the to list) on endless
> > > > > > large threads and reposts of patch serieses about MFD drivers most of
> > > > > > which are of very little relevance to me so they get ignored very
> > > > > > easily.
> > > > 
> > > > > Calm down dear, it's only a commercial.
> > > > 
> > > > > I wasn't having a pop.  Rather empathising with your situation and
> > > > > facilitating a resend that you're likely to see.
> > > > 
> > > > > I'm sure Johan will do the right thing.
> > > > 
> > > > My point is that a simple resend has a reasonable chance of getting
> > > > dropped on the floor.
> > > 
> > > As I say, I'm sure Johan will do what's required for that not to
> > > happen.
> > 
> > Seriously? *Me* do the right thing?
> 
> Yes, *you*.  If a patch slips though a Maintainer's net, which does
> happen every so often [*], I'm sure even you are not infallible to
> that, a submitter must issue a RESEND (as you have now just done so).

As you know, five reminders asking for an ack from Mark was sent by the
two of us combined without even an indication that the messages had been
noted over a period of almost two months.

If Mark feels that he is getting spammed with unrelated MFD patches,
then *you* and Mark need to figure out a way to get a message across
when there actually is something he needs to look at.

I don't care if it's with a special [Lee-wants-Marks-ack] subject
prefix, an irc message on Linaro's channels or a phone call, but it's not
something that a patch submitter for MFD should need to know about
(it obviously isn't even documented).

> > We have a regression in your subsystems (mfd/regulator) with a fix
> > that's been sitting in both your mailboxes since March 25th.
> 
> Fully aware and ready to apply once the correct process has been
> carried out.  I get shirty when people submit MFD patches without
> permission, and I refuse to be a hypocrite.

That's perfectly fine. Your subsystems intersect and you two need to
figure out how you communicate. That's all.

Johan
--
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/