linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/32] mfd: exynos-lpass: Use common soc/exynos-regs-pmu.h header

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170412075754.l2vvyiemsmb3midq@dell>
Date:   Wed, 12 Apr 2017 08:57:54 +0100
From:   Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:     Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>
Cc:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/32] mfd: exynos-lpass: Use common
 soc/exynos-regs-pmu.h header

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 April 2017 10:04 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Apr 2017, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> >> On Tuesday 11 April 2017 07:44 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
> >>>>
> >>>> The MFD-specific header will go away because it duplicates defines from
> >>>> exynos-regs-pmu.h.
> >>>>
> >>>> Reported-by: kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
> >>>> Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Okay, this is confusing.
> >>>
> >>> I'm guessing you're sending this to Greg for inclusion into -stable?
> >>
> >> No, it's not for stable. It's for 4.12.
> > 
> > Then I'm totally confused, since this patch has already been applied,
> > which is obvious since I already signed it off?
> 
> With your immutable branch applied to phy tree, it's going to be part of my
> pull request too.

Okay, now I understand.

> >>> Isn't there a way to specify this intention?
> >>
> >> The pull request (cover letter) specifies this intention.
> > 
> > Great!  But you forgot to send it to me, doh!
> > 
> > Why are you sending patches with a pull-request?
> 
> Greg KH sometimes would like to take a look at the patches that are part of the
> pull request. I've been practicing it for a long time.

It's a strange practice that I've not seen before.

IMHO, it displays a lack of trust for you as Maintainer.

Also, in Greg's words:

  "I have no idea, I dropped it and totally ignored it :)"

Might be worth stopping this particular practice.  If he really wants
to check the patches before pulling from you he can always `git log -p
<tag>` the patches from afar.

> >>> Also, patch 1 and 3 appear to be identical.
> >>>
> >>> Not even sure how that's possible.
> > 
> > Still have no idea how you managed to do this!
> 
> I think first it got applied when I applied patches from local-next to next and
> then I did a merge of your immutable branch.

Sounds like an odd pickle to find yourself in.

Might be worth reviewing the way you handle immutable branches.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog