linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update MAX77802 PMIC entry

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: <20170516110634.owmasmh2qjmyc7io@sirena.org.uk>
Date:   Tue, 16 May 2017 12:06:34 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:     Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@...hile0.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update MAX77802 PMIC entry

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 08:51:40AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Sun, 14 May 2017, Mark Brown wrote:

> > Since I'm expected to apply this I wouldn't normally expect to see my
> > ack - like I say if I'm acking something for me it's normally because I
> > expect someone else to actually apply it (that's the standard thing).

> I don't agree with this.  You provided your Ack under the assumption
> that it would be applied though another tree, but there is no reason
> why it would be dropped just because that is no longer the case.

When I see a patch I've acked, especially one that I'd not expect to
apply, I'll just delete the mail since I've already reviewed it.  I get
lots of such stuff that's part of a bigger series resent for
whatever reason.  One of the first questions I ask myself if I'm not
sure why I have something is if I already handled it and if so I often
stop there.  

This didn't happen here mainly because I remembered what the patch was,
if I'd forgotten I'd probably have just discarded it for the same reason
I initially acked it.  Of course it's possible that that could've
happened anyway but it's less likely as it's less mechanical.

> It's commonplace for me to provide Acks for patches I know will
> *eventually* be applied by me.  Removing them when applying patches is
> part of my daily routine.

You're the only person I'm aware of who does this.

> TL;DR:  If a Maintainer (or anyone for that matter) provides a *-by
> tag, it should be carried forward with the (unchanged) patch until
> acceptance.

Given what acks get used for (they're more of a process thing than
anything else) I'm not so sure it works well for them.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)