linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] spi: bcm63xx-spi: allow building for BMIPS

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:   Tue, 16 Jun 2020 18:25:34 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc:     Álvaro Fernández Rojas <noltari@...il.com>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com, p.zabel@...gutronix.de,
        linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] spi: bcm63xx-spi: allow building for BMIPS

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:15:15AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 6/16/2020 10:07 AM, Mark Brown wrote:

> > Please do not submit new versions of already applied patches, please
> > submit incremental updates to the existing code.  Modifying existing
> > commits creates problems for other users building on top of those
> > commits so it's best practice to only change pubished git commits if
> > absolutely essential.

> In Alvaro's defense, you applied the patches despite me requesting that
> specific changes be made (use the optional reset control API variant).

I applied only the two patches that you'd acked, not the reset patches
which had problems.

> Having a FAQ entry about what your expectations as a subsystem
> maintainer are (ala netdev-FAQ.rst) could save you time along the way.

Incremental updates are the default AFAICT?

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