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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200616183010.GV4447@sirena.org.uk>
Date:   Tue, 16 Jun 2020 19:30:10 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>
Cc:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        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 10:31:16AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 6/16/2020 10:25 AM, Mark Brown wrote:

> >> 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.

> Indeed, sorry for not reading your commit message properly, I believe I
> request that before, cannot the "applied" response just reply with the
> patches *applied* and not *all* part of the series?

You might've mentioned it to someone else using b4 but not me - AFAICT
it's not configurable.  I can see arguments either way TBH, but I do
agree that the current output could be confusing and if nothing else the
wording could be better.

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