linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ASoC: qcom: lpass-cpu: support full duplex operation

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: <20200416093556.GB5354@sirena.org.uk>
Date:   Thu, 16 Apr 2020 10:35:56 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
Cc:     alsa-devel@...a-project.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Takahide Higuchi <takahidehiguchi@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: qcom: lpass-cpu: support full duplex operation

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 09:05:55AM +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:

> Looks like this patch was missed in last cycle, Should I resend this one or
> are you okay to apply this. This patch is required to get full duplex on
> msm8916 based platforms.

Please don't send content free pings and please allow a reasonable time
for review.  People get busy, go on holiday, attend conferences and so 
on so unless there is some reason for urgency (like critical bug fixes)
please allow at least a couple of weeks for review.  If there have been
review comments then people may be waiting for those to be addressed.

Sending content free pings adds to the mail volume (if they are seen at
all) which is often the problem and since they can't be reviewed
directly if something has gone wrong you'll have to resend the patches
anyway, so sending again is generally a better approach though there are
some other maintainers who like them - if in doubt look at how patches
for the subsystem are normally handled.

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