linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] Input: atmel_mxt_ts

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:   Mon, 14 Sep 2020 19:28:38 +0300
From:   Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Jiada Wang <jiada_wang@...tor.com>, nick@...anahar.org,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        linux-input <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eugeniu Rosca <erosca@...adit-jv.com>,
        Andrew_Gabbasov@...tor.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] Input: atmel_mxt_ts - implement I2C retries

14.09.2020 18:50, Andy Shevchenko пишет:
...
>> It's more preferred
>> to accept patch as-is if it does right thing and then maintainer could
>> modify the patch, making cosmetic changes.
> 
> It depends on the maintainer's workflow (which may be different from
> maintainer to maintainer).

Sure!

It's awesome that you're pointing out it all in the reviews because it's
important to have such things explained and definitely should help to
improve quality of further of patches! But it shouldn't be necessary to
demand a very minor changes, IMO.

In particular Jiada was submitting this and lots of other atmel_mxt_ts
patches for about a year now without much progress yet, and you probably
should know how a frustrating experience this could be for a contributor
since you're a longtime kernel developer.