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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 12:00:31 +0200 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de> Cc: 周琰杰 <zhouyanjie@...yeetech.com>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, Dongsheng Qiu <dongsheng.qiu@...enic.com>, Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>, qipengzhen <aric.pzqi@...enic.com>, Rick Tyliu <rick.tyliu@...enic.com>, Yanfei Li <yanfei.li@...enic.com>, zhenwenjin@...il.com, 周正 <sernia.zhou@...mail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: PHY: JZ4770: Fix static checker warning On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 11:35:16AM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote: > > The commit 2a6c0b82e651 ("USB: PHY: JZ4770: Add support for new > > Ingenic SoCs.") introduced the initialization function for different > > chips, but left the relevant code involved in the resetting process > > in the original function, resulting in uninitialized variable calls. > > * Can another imperative wording be helpful for the change description? > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?id=d012a7190fc1fd72ed48911e77ca97ba4521bccd#n151 > > * How do you think about to mention any source code analysis tool here? > > * Would an other commit subject be more appropriate? > > > > Fixes: 2a6c0b82e651 ("USB: PHY: JZ4770: Add support for new > > Ingenic SoCs."). > > Please omit a line break for this tag. > > > I find that a single patch would not need a cover letter. Hi, This is the semi-friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman. Markus, you seem to have sent a nonsensical or otherwise pointless review comment to a patch submission on a Linux kernel developer mailing list. I strongly suggest that you not do this anymore. Please do not bother developers who are actively working to produce patches and features with comments that, in the end, are a waste of time. Patch submitter, please ignore Markus's suggestion; you do not need to follow it at all. The person/bot/AI that sent it is being ignored by almost all Linux kernel maintainers for having a persistent pattern of behavior of producing distracting and pointless commentary, and inability to adapt to feedback. Please feel free to also ignore emails from them. thanks, greg k-h's patch email bot
Powered by blists - more mailing lists