linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] misc fixes to PV extentions code

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:   Thu, 27 Jun 2019 16:47:11 +0800
From:   Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@...cle.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org, bp@...en8.de,
        hpa@...or.com, boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, jgross@...e.com,
        sstabellini@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
        srinivas.eeda@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] misc fixes to PV extentions code


On 2019/6/26 21:39, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst clearly explains why it is a
> bad idea to send random collections of patches especially if some patches
> are independent and contain bug fixes.
>
> These rules exist for a reason and are not subject to personal
> interpretation. You want your patches to be reviewed and merged, so pretty
> please make the life of those who need to do that as easy as possible.
>
> It's not the job of reviewers and maintainers to distangle your randomly
> ordered patch series.

Ok，understood.  I'll send independent and unrelated patch seperately.

Thanks

Zhenzhong