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 17:24:05 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Cc:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.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 11:51:59AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 10:10:49AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:

> > 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.

The reason that there was no indication that the message had been noted
was that the message had in fact not been seen, nor had any of your
pings; one of the big problems here is that you are sending pings
instead of resending (which is something that does get frequent
pushback, Lee did advise you to resend).

> 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.

Like I say, resending is the main advice here.

> 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).

Resending is something that is pretty standard.  Most of the things that
can result in something not getting looked at also involve no longer
having a copy of the patch (so a resend will be needed anyway), and
often many of the others will result in the ping not being seen either
(for example it gets threaded in with the patch buried in the mailbox,
or it looks like the patch is generating lots of discussion and will
need a new version anyway).  At best it's going to require going and
finding the original mail, and they can be actively unhelpful.

A fresh copy of the patch in contrast fits naturally into the standard
workflow with no extra barriers.

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