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  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]
Date:   Wed, 25 Oct 2017 09:17:46 +0200
From:   Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To:     Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@...il.com>
Cc:     Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Chris Healy <cphealy@...il.com>,
        Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>,
        Nikita Yushchenko <nikita.yoush@...entembedded.com>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v7 1/1] platform: Add driver for RAVE Supervisory
 Processor

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 11:40:38AM -0700, Andrey Smirnov wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 11:30:54AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> > >  drivers/platform/Kconfig        |   2 +
> >> > >  drivers/platform/Makefile       |   1 +
> >> > >  drivers/platform/rave/Kconfig   |  26 ++
> >> > >  drivers/platform/rave/Makefile  |   1 +
> >> > >  drivers/platform/rave/rave-sp.c | 677 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> >
> >> > First of all, why do these live in drivers/platform and why don't use
> >> > the mfd subsystem to implement this driver (instead of rolling your own
> >> > mfd-implementation)?
> >>
> >> Sending contributors around like this is quite uncool.
> >
> > Asking questions when things are done in unexpected ways is part of the
> > review process, and the backstory here wasn't documented in the patch or
> > cover letter.
> 
> Cover letter for this submission contains the link to v1 of the
> patchset (marked as "[v1]"):
> 
> https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=149970632624803&w=2
> 
> whose cover letter captures why the driver was added to
> "drivers/platform" to a degree and contains a link to original
> submission:

You cannot expect a reviewer to go through seven revisions of a patch
series to find this information.

> Granted it is not completely effortless to get to all of that, but I
> don't think it is fair to say that all of that was not documented.

I said it "wasn't documented in the patch or cover letter", which I
still claim to be an accurate description.

You did something odd, I called it out, and now the issue is resolved.
Let's move on.

Johan

Powered by blists - more mailing lists