linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: dts: Add level for cpu dt node for exynos7

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:   Mon, 14 Nov 2016 11:28:34 +0530
From:   Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
        Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...il.com>
Cc:     Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org" 
        <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>, will.deacon@....com,
        "catalin.marinas" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        robin.murphy@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: dts: Add level for cpu dt node for exynos7

Hi Krzysztof,

On 11/13/2016 12:43 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...il.com> wrote:
>> Hi Javier,
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas
>> <javier@....samsung.com> wrote:
>>> Hello Alim,
>>>
>>> On 11/12/2016 07:17 AM, Alim Akhtar wrote:
>>>> This patch adds level for cpu dt node, so that these levels can be used
>>>
>>> Do you mean s/level/label here? I'm asking because you are using level
>>> consistently in the subject line and commit message but I'm not sure
>>> what it means in this context.
>>>
>>
>> Ah!! my bad. Its __label__. If required, will respin.
>> Thanks for review.
>
> I think there is no need of respin because this should be squashed
> with previous patch. This is quite small and there are no functional
> changes here (labels are transparent, except of course conflict
> cases). Without the 2/2,  this patch does not have much sense yet.
>
The reason why I kept the _label_ changes are separate patch is to keep 
git bisect happy. If you think there won't be a case for that, then lets 
merge the two in single patch.
Let me know if you want me to respin or you will take care.

> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
>
>