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
| ||
|
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists