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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 17 Feb 2020 16:26:52 +0000
From:   Mark Brown <>
To:     Samuel Holland <>
Cc:     Liam Girdwood <>,
        Rob Herring <>,
        Mark Rutland <>,
        Maxime Ripard <>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <>,
        Vasily Khoruzhick <>,
        Mylène Josserand 
        Jaroslav Kysela <>,
        Takashi Iwai <>,,,,
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/34] sun8i-codec fixes and new features

On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 12:42:16AM -0600, Samuel Holland wrote:

> There are several trivial fixes in here, and there are several commits
> that just add new features without changing any existing behavior, but
> there is enough changing that I thought it would be best to send the
> whole thing as an RFC. I'm more than happy to reorganize this into one
> or several patchsets in future revisions. It doesn't have to all go in
> at once.

This could definitely use being both split up and reordered, it's a 34
patch series as things stand which is just far too big and I don't
understand the ordering within the series - there's a mix of fixes,
cleanups and new features which should come in that order but don't.
This makes it difficult to get a handle on what's going on because what
the series is doing jumps about a lot.  There's also a lot of overuse of
fixes tags and stable tags which also makes things less clear.  I'd
suggest first sending all the clear fixes as a separate series with the
cleanups and new functionality separate.

With regard to the ABI breaks they *may* be OK for mainline if we're
confident that there's not going to be anyone broken by them but we
should be looking to maintain compatibility if we can even if that's the

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists