linux-kernel - Re: mfd: smsc-ece1099: Fine-tuning for smsc_i2c

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:	Tue, 12 Jan 2016 12:03:54 +0000
From:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: mfd: smsc-ece1099: Fine-tuning for smsc_i2c_probe()

On Tue, 12 Jan 2016, SF Markus Elfring wrote:

> >> Do you request that I should resend my four update suggestions
> >> for different components as a single patch series for the software
> >> area "drivers/mfd"?
> > 
> > You have to make that decision yourself.
> 
> I chose on 2015-12-29 to send them in the combination you see.

That was not a good choice.

> > What I'm saying is, if the cover letter says there are 2 patches
> 
> These refer to the component "smsc-ece1099".

That's fine.  Then there should have been 2 patches in the set.  But
then to attach 2 unrelated patches to the set is not fine.  They
should have either been submitted as part of the set i.e. 0/4 or
completely separately.

> > in the set, that's what we should expect.
> 
> Can changes for the components "dm355evm_msp" and "twl-core"
> be clarified independently?

Yes, or together would have also been fine.  The only think that is
not okay is to submit a set of 2 patches, then to "bolt-on" another
2 for some reason.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog