linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/30] spi: dw: Add full Baikal-T1 SPI Controllers support

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:   Wed, 30 Sep 2020 12:04:04 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@...kalelectronics.ru>
Cc:     Alexey Malahov <Alexey.Malahov@...kalelectronics.ru>,
        Ramil Zaripov <Ramil.Zaripov@...kalelectronics.ru>,
        Pavel Parkhomenko <Pavel.Parkhomenko@...kalelectronics.ru>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Lars Povlsen <lars.povlsen@...rochip.com>,
        "wuxu . wu" <wuxu.wu@...wei.com>, Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/30] spi: dw: Add full Baikal-T1 SPI Controllers support

On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 01:43:03AM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 03:43:51PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

> > This is a *huge* patch series which is a bit unweildy to review
> > (especially given the other 10+ patch series you sent at the same time),

> Yeah, sorry about the bulky series. If most of the changes have been more
> complicated than that, less inter-dependent and less directed to having the code
> prepared for the main alterations I would have definitely split them up in
> different series. But the biggest part of the patchset is just a preparation
> before adding the mem-ops, poll-based transfers and Baikal-T1 SPI support. So
> having them submitted without the main part of the patchset would be just weird.

One option with things like this is to just not send everything at once
- even when split into multiple series it's a huge bulk of patches in an
inbox.  Unless the patches are obviously from their subjects repetitive
people probably aren't getting far enough in to look at the actual
patches or even their sizes before deciding it looks like a lot of work
and putting things off for later.

> I see you have already merged in the first nine patches. So would you like me
> to split the rest of them up into two series or it would be ok to resend (if
> required) them as one series seeing it's not that bulky anymore?

Not all of the first 9, IIRC I skipped one I had comments on.  If they
can be split that would probably be helpful, if there are dependencies
then it's not going to buy too much.

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