linux-kernel - Re: mfd: Patch management?

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4b525322-424d-328b-a348-626a26da8f61@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:   Tue, 23 Jan 2018 17:49:59 +0100
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:     kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Lars Pöschel <poeschel@...onage.de>,
        Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: mfd: Patch management?

> What I should do really is ask you to take all similar (remove error
> message, don't use sizeof(struct X), remove '== NULL') changes and
> squash them into single patches.

I would try such an approach more often if I would get also more
promising indications of corresponding change acceptance besides
other software development “surprises”.


> However, I realise that you might want the "upstream creds",
> so I won't do that

I find this view interesting somehow.


> -- but not at the expense of my time/effort.
> 
> The two choices are to squash or to create a set.

This information triggers recurring difficulties around differences
in the preferred patch granularity.

Regards,
Markus