linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 00/10] Adding support for Microchip Sparx5 SoC

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]

Date:   Mon, 27 Jul 2020 13:07:14 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Lars Povlsen <lars.povlsen@...rochip.com>
Cc:     Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        SoC Team <soc@...nel.org>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Steen Hegelund <Steen.Hegelund@...rochip.com>,
        Microchip Linux Driver Support <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        DTML <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-clk <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/10] Adding support for Microchip Sparx5 SoC

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 12:30 PM Lars Povlsen
<lars.povlsen@...rochip.com> wrote:
> Alexandre Belloni writes:
> > As Arnd stated, he already applied the patches so you have to send an
> > incremental patch to fix the clock driver.
> >
>
> I actually wrote Arnd about this specifically, and he replied that a
> patch against either next or mainline was fine - so that's why I
> refreshed the lot (Including Reviewed-by: headers).

I think I misunderstood your question. To clarify: Alexandre is right,
you should not resend patches that have already been merged but
instead send the incremental patches if you need further changes.

I thought your question was about the case where your patch
series has conflicts against another unrelated set of changes
that may have been merged already.

> But I will send an incremental patch just in case, no problem.

Thanks,

      Arnd