| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20160112120354.GF27358@x1> 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists