linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH,RESEND2] regulator: fixed, gpio: dt: regulator-name is required property

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]

Date:   Wed, 14 Feb 2018 11:00:12 +0100
From:   Harald Geyer <harald@...ib.org>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
cc:     Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH,RESEND2] regulator: fixed, gpio: dt: regulator-name is required property

Mark Brown writes:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 02:43:08PM +0000, Harald Geyer wrote:
> 
> > BTW, it took me a bit to figure out that by "content free ping" you are
> > refering to the quoting of the patch. Maybe you can reword your canned
> > response to make it easier to understand.
> 
> No, a content free ping is when you just send a reply saying something
> to the effect of "hey, what's going on with this?".

Well, I did quote the entire patch and gave a summary of the status
as far as I know it. So I really don't understand why I got the
"no content free pings" response ...

> As I said in my
> reply best case the answer is going to be "I have no idea, you need to
> resend since I'll need the patch to do anything with it" and worst case
> it just won't get seen at all if the thing really did get buried
> somehow.

So you are saying you don't want pings as followups to patches at all, if
the patch is old enough that it probably got lost?

I guess that would make sense too, but again it's not obvious to read
the canned response that way.