[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5B8DA87D05A7694D9FA63FD143655C1B9422F595@hasmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 16:45:59 +0000
From: "Winkler, Tomas" <tomas.winkler@...el.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
CC: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
"Usyskin, Alexander" <alexander.usyskin@...el.com>,
"linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org" <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/3 RESEND] tpm: add longer timeouts for creation
commands.
>
> On Tue, 2018-03-06 at 08:06 +0000, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 01:09:09PM +0000, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Why you need cover letter? What are u missing in the patch
> > > > description
> > >
> > > If you submit a *patch set* I *require* a cover letter, yes.
> >
> > It's good but it is not must, you are inventing your own rules.
>
> As long as the Maintainer is the gatekeeper, you're not going to get very far
> with this argument. The fact is that a lot of subsystems have varying rules;
> often undocumented, some of which are even in conflict, like alphabetic vs
> reverse christmas tree format for includes.
Usually I'm trying to stay in convention of the surouding code even if it's agains my personal taste.
I think this particular case was a bit different.
> A cover letter is actually one of the more uniform rules. It's referred to in
> submitting patches, but not actually documented there.
I'm all for cover letters, but for few code line fixes it's more comments then code.
What is most important I think I and Jarkko had found finally a common ground.
Thanks
Tomas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists