linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] mfd: wm8994-core: don't split lines unnecessarily

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:   Wed, 5 Oct 2016 14:25:36 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:     linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
        patches@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] mfd: wm8994-core: don't split lines unnecessarily

On 05-10-16, 09:49, Lee Jones wrote:
> You are experienced enough to know better than this.

:)

> a) Contentless pings have never been acceptable.  If you genuinely
> think a patch has been forgotten you should resubmit with a
> [RESEND]. That is their entire purpose.

Sure, but I really believe a light *ping* is much better than a complete resend
to start with. It generates far less noise.

> b) You submitted this patch right at the end of the release cycle, and
> your ping was sent during the merge-window.  Most Maintainers, myself
> included, like to have patches soak tested in -next for at least a
> couple of weeks prior to acceptance.

I agree to that, I sent it after rc6. I wasn't looking to get this merged during
this cycle, but was wondering if it got missed or something like that.

I still don't think that a simple Ping was that bad of an option, but its fine.
Take your time to review this, no issues.

Cheers.

-- 
viresh