linux-kernel - Re: mfd: dm355evm_msp: Refactoring for add

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]

Message-ID: <1467390199.21157.5.camel@perches.com>
Date:	Fri, 01 Jul 2016 09:23:19 -0700
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Cc:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: mfd: dm355evm_msp: Refactoring for add_child()

On Fri, 2016-07-01 at 16:40 +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > 
> > Can you please fix your email client to _not_ send References:
> > and In-reply-to: headers when sending new patches?
> I prefer to associate some patches with previous relevant
> discussion directly.
> 
> 
> > 
> > Even better would be to use git send-email for these patches.
> This command can also support a parameter like "--thread", can't it?

yes, good to see you can read documentation.

> Would you like point any more views out about communication styles?

Actually, yes.

Just because you've submitted a similar patch, an
independent patch like this one, doesn't need to
refer to those patches you've previously submitted.

For instance, your "References:" for this email
imply some association to a patch series you submitted
"[PATCH v3 0/3] gianfar: Fine-tuning for gfar_ethflow_to_filer_table()"
for no obvious reason.  What is this reason?