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: Thu, 2 May 2019 12:14:38 +0530 From: Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org> To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> Cc: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>, alsa-devel@...a-project.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tiwai@...e.de, broonie@...nel.org, liam.r.girdwood@...ux.intel.com, jank@...ence.com, joe@...ches.com, srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org, Sanyog Kale <sanyog.r.kale@...el.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/22] soundwire: fix SPDX license for header files On 02-05-19, 08:31, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 10:46:49AM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote: > > On 01-05-19, 10:57, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > > > No C++ comments in .h files > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de> > > > Signed-off-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com> > > > --- > > > drivers/soundwire/bus.h | 4 ++-- > > > drivers/soundwire/cadence_master.h | 4 ++-- > > > drivers/soundwire/intel.h | 4 ++-- > > > > As I said previously this touches subsystem header as well as driver > > headers which is not ideal. > > What? Who knows that? Who cares? Well at least Pierre knows that very well :) He is designate Reviewer of this subsystem. > This is doing "one logical thing" to all of the needed files. Your > split of "this is a driver" vs. "this is a subsystem" split is _VERY_ > arbritary. > > That's just too picky and assumes a subsystem-internal-knowledge much > deeper than anyone submitting a normal cleanup patch would ever know. Sure I do agree that this assumes internal knowledge but the contributor knows the subsystem extremely well and he knows the different parts. For drive by contributor I agree things would be not that picky :) Even considering the patch series, some split was even file based and in this case not done. All I ask is for consistency in the series proposed. > I think you have swung too far to the "too picky" side, you might want > to dial it back. Sure given that this is code cleanup I will split them up and push. Shouldn't take much of my time. Thanks for the advise. -- ~Vinod
Powered by blists - more mailing lists