linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 0/4] mfd/regulator/clk/input: bd71837: ROHM BD71837 PMIC driver

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]

Message-ID: <20180703070200.GC20176@dell>
Date:   Tue, 3 Jul 2018 08:02:00 +0100
From:   Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:     Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>
Cc:     mturquette@...libre.com, sboyd@...nel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        mark.rutland@....com, lgirdwood@...il.com, broonie@...nel.org,
        mazziesaccount@...il.com, arnd@...db.de, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com,
        sre@...nel.org, chenjh@...k-chips.com, andrew.smirnov@...il.com,
        linus.walleij@...aro.org, kstewart@...uxfoundation.org,
        heiko@...ech.de, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
        mikko.mutanen@...rohmeurope.com, heikki.haikola@...rohmeurope.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/4] mfd/regulator/clk/input: bd71837: ROHM BD71837
 PMIC driver

On Thu, 21 Jun 2018, Matti Vaittinen wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 01:55:31PM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> > Patch series adding support for ROHM BD71837 PMIC.
> > 
> What is the preferred way when I send updated patches:
> 
> 1. always resend _all_ unapplied patches even if there is no changes to
>    some of them. (patch-vN mail thread contains _all_ unapplied patches)
> 2. only resend changed patches (patch-vN mail thread contains only
>    patches that were changed from patch-vN-1)
> 
> I have currently used approach 1 - so that no patches would be
> accidentally forgotten - but downside is that people need to check if
> they have already reviewed some of the patches. I'd rather not caused
> any extra work. What is the most convenient way for you guys?

Option 1 is preferred.

Just ensure you apply any tags you have collected so reviewers can see
which patches are pending a review.  It's also a good idea to keep a
succinct change log between the "--" marker and the diff stat where
you can state "v4: No change" or the like.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog