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: <20190507094615.xrmuaokro3ll4ghg@mobilestation>
Date:   Tue, 7 May 2019 12:46:16 +0300
From:   Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>
To:     Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
Cc:     Peter Korsgaard <peter.korsgaard@...co.com>,
        Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@...latforms.ru>,
        "linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] i2c-mux-gpio: Split plat- and dt-specific code up

Hello Peter

On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 09:17:38AM +0000, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2019-05-07 11:02, Serge Semin wrote:
> > Hello folks,
> > 
> > Any updates on this patchset status? I haven't got any comment on v2, but
> > instead a notification about the status change was sent to me:
> > 
> >> * linux-i2c: [v2,1/3] i2c-mux-gpio: Unpin a platform-based device initialization
> >>     - http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1091120/
> >>     - for: Linux I2C development
> >>    was: New
> >>    now: Superseded
> >>
> >> * linux-i2c: [v2,2/3] i2c-mux-gpio: Unpin the platform-specific GPIOs request code
> >>     - http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1091122/
> >>     - for: Linux I2C development
> >>    was: New
> >>    now: Superseded
> >>
> >> * linux-i2c: [v2,3/3] i2c-mux-gpio: Create of-based GPIOs request method
> >>     - http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1091121/
> >>     - for: Linux I2C development
> >>    was: New
> >>    now: Superseded
> > 
> > I may misunderstand something, but how come the v2 patchset switched to be superseded
> > while it is the last patchset version I've sent?
> 
> That was my mistake. Patchwork got confused when v2 was sent as a reply to
> something in the v1 tree, and marked all 8 patches as "v2". Then I in turn
> got confused by that, and changed status on the wrong set. Sorry!
> 
> So, thanks for the heads up, it should be fixed now.
> 
> As for comments on the patches, I'm personally buried in work and others
> may have the merge window to focus on...
> 
> Cheers,
> Peter

No worries. Glad everything is clear now. Thanks for the quick response.

Regarding the patchset comments. Lets wait for the merge window being closed.
Then if no comments will have been received in one-two weeks after that I'll
ping this patchset mailing-list again .)

Cheers,
-Sergey

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ