linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mfd: ucb1x00: remove NO

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: <20160907160733.GO1041@n2100.armlinux.org.uk>
Date:   Wed, 7 Sep 2016 17:07:33 +0100
From:   Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Hans-Christian Egtvedt <egtvedt@...fundet.no>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: ucb1x00: remove NO_IRQ check

On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 04:08:46PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Sep 2016, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > It got sent for REVIEW COMMENTS and TESTING for people like Robert
> > Jarzmik and Adam, to get some sense as to the _entire_ series
> > acceptability to people.  This is a _massive_ series, and it's still
> > growing.  The series is now at more than 100 patches.
> 
> We've already covered the fact that you should have sent it as an
> [RFC].  None of this would have happened if you'd done so.  Let's
> leave it at that.

I wonder if you realise, or even known, given your relative inexperience,
that many people actually _ignore_ patches with a RFC tag, and provide
no review or comments against them.  Remember, by your own admission,
there's twenty years experience difference between us.

I'm going to take one last issue with your comments:

> That's the problem, it was not clear, at all.  You said you "could
> have arguably applied it earlier in the set".  But without knowing
> that this wasn't a stand-alone set (how could I, you didn't mention
> that), what does the really mean?

So by your own admission, you weren't sure of the understanding, and
from the extract of your mailbox that you kindly provided earlier in
your reply:

> 30 2016 Russell King - AR (  0) [PATCH 0/8] SA11x0/PXA remainder & cleanups
> 30 2016 Russell King      (  0) └>[PATCH 1/8] mfd: ucb1x00: allow IRQ probing to work with IRQs > 32

if that's all you saw, "earlier in the set" in the first message
wouldn't make any sense, and should've set alarm bells ringing that
something had gone wrong, or you were without complete information.

The reasonable thing to have done - especially by your own admission
that you found it confusing - would have been to ask for clarification.
You did not, you chose after just one hour (again, your admission) to
apply the patch.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.