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  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:   Thu, 23 May 2019 17:12:41 -0700
From:   Jeff Kletsky <lede@...ycomm.com>
To:     Schrempf Frieder <frieder.schrempf@...tron.de>,
        Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
Cc:     "linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] mtd: spinand: Add support for GigaDevice
 GD5F1GQ4UFxxG

(reduced direct addressees, though still on lists)

On 5/22/19 11:42 PM, Schrempf Frieder wrote:

> On 23.05.19 00:05, Jeff Kletsky wrote:
>> From: Jeff Kletsky <git-commits@...ycomm.com>
>>
>> The GigaDevice GD5F1GQ4UFxxG SPI NAND is in current production devices
>> and, while it has the same logical layout as the E-series devices,
>> it differs in the SPI interfacing in significant ways.
>>
>> This support is contingent on previous commits to:
>>
>>     * Add support for two-byte device IDs
>>     * Define macros for page-read ops with three-byte addresses
>>
>> http://www.gigadevice.com/datasheet/gd5f1gq4xfxxg/
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jeff Kletsky <git-commits@...ycomm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Frieder Schrempf <frieder.schrempf@...tron.de>
>
>> Reported-by: kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com>
> I dont't think that this Reported-by tag should be used here. The bot
> reported build errors caused by your patch and you fixed it in a new
> version. As far as I understand this tag, it references someone who
> reported a flaw/bug that led to this change in the first place.
> The version history of the changes won't be visible in the git history
> later, but the tag will be and would be rather confusing.

Thank you for your patience and explanations. I've been being conservative
as I'm not a "seasoned, Linux professional" and am still getting my
git send-email config / command line for Linux properly straightened out.

Should I send another patch set with the `kbuild...` tag removed,
or would it be removed in the process of an appropriate member
of the Linux MTD team adding their tag for approval, if and when
that happens?

Jeff

Powered by blists - more mailing lists