linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/9] usb: host: isp1362-hcd: mark expected switch fall-through

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]

Date:   Wed, 01 Nov 2017 12:41:08 -0500
From:   "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] usb: host: isp1362-hcd: mark expected switch
 fall-through

Quoting Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>:

[..]
>>
>> Sure thing.
>>
>> Just some questions about the process to follow:
>>
>> Should I send a v2 replying to this particular thread only? like [PATCH v2
>> 6/9]
>> or should I send just a new patch separated from this patch series? I guess
>> this is the case.
>
> Brand new patch is fine, this is gone from my patch queue.
>
>> Some maintainers have told me that in cases where a particular patch in the
>> series needs an update, the complete patchset should be sent again.
>> But I think that depends on the functional impact the patch has over
>> the whole patchset.
>
> Yes, it all depends, the rest of these patches are already in my tree.
>

OK. I'll send a new patch shortly.

Thanks!
--
Gustavo A. R. Silva