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: <CABxcv=mf6DU-Pkkwgwp2La4pO1VHQPRBO74vXTgAH2_yzpmyhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 16 May 2017 13:56:42 +0200
From:   Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@...hile0.org>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update MAX77802 PMIC entry

Hello Mark and Lee,

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> 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 wondered what to do for this corner case... since I also didn't want
you to tell me why I didn't carry the provided Acked-by tag :)

>> 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.
>

Thanks a lot for clarifying your process. I'll remember to drop your
Acked-by tag if the same situation happens in the future for patches
to your subsystems.

>> 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.

Yes, I know you add Acks for your own reference to know that the patch
has been already reviewed/acked by you. So I'll continue to carry them
for patches to the MFD subsystem.

Best regards,
Javier