linux-kernel - Re: UFS V11 patch-set

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, 22 Mar 2016 11:04:25 +0000
From:	Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>
CC:	vinayak holikatti <vinholikatti@...il.com>,
	<JBottomley@...allels.com>, <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	<hch@....de>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Carlos Palminha" <CARLOS.PALMINHA@...opsys.com>,
	<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"robh@...nel.org >> Rob Herring" <robh@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: UFS V11 patch-set

Hi Mark,

I have no intend to break the rules. I am just trying to communicate with UFS
maintainers that so far gave me no response. Merging in v4.7 is fine, but I
would like that UFS maintainers give me some feedback about the next steps, but
so far didn't have luck.

Thanks,
Joao


On 3/22/2016 10:58 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:31:28AM +0000, Joao Pinto wrote:
> 
>> The following patch-set was approved by Arnd Bergmann and Rob Herring and I
>> would appreciate that someone from SCSI / UFS gave a final checkout in order to
>> evaluate the possibility of still merging it to v4.6 or putting it in a branch
>> in SCSI to be merged to v4.7.
> 
> I've no idea why you're sending me this stuff but please stop - you sent
> a similar mail yesterday and I see there were a bunch of similar mails
> before you started CCing me into the thread - but sending daily top
> posted content free pings is just going to annoy people (or at least
> it's annoying me) and sending them to random other maintainers isn't
> likely to improve things.  This is especially the case when we're more
> than half way through the merge window and the code apparently isn't
> even in -next yet.  
> 
> Please stop this and follow Arnd's advice (which you quoted from the
> message you're replying to):
> 
>>>> On 3/18/2016 2:49 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> 
>>>>> I think the code is ok now, but the timing apparently didn't work for 4.6.
>>>>> I'd suggest you resend as soon as 4.6-rc1 is out so it can get merged into 4.7.
> 
> If there's some reason to break the process you need to articulate what
> it is and give people a chance to respond but that's *very* rare, unless
> there is an unusually strong reason people are going to use the normal
> development workflow.
>