linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] mtd: spinand: Add support for GigaDevice GD5F1GQ4UFxxG

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]

Date:   Mon, 27 May 2019 06:35:59 +0000
From:   Schrempf Frieder <frieder.schrempf@...tron.de>
To:     Jeff Kletsky <lede@...ycomm.com>,
        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

Hi Jeff,

On 24.05.19 02:12, Jeff Kletsky wrote:
> (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.

Being conservative in such cases is not a fault at all. I'm not an 
expert either. I'm just recommending what I think might be the "correct" 
way to do it.

> 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?

I don't think that's necessary. Miquèl is the one to pick up the patch, 
so he could probably drop the "Reported-by: kbuild" when he applies it.

Regards,
Frieder