linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 RESEND 0/9] Some fixes for spi-s3c64xx

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]

Message-ID: <CAJKOXPe+w=mYfX9PaG=FXt5mWPqBiqe833mdetCQWca+H_nXSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 2 Oct 2020 08:18:35 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Lukasz Stelmach <l.stelmach@...sung.com>,
        Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>,
        Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>, Andi Shyti <andi@...zian.org>,
        linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
        "linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org" 
        <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        Bartłomiej Żołnierkiewicz 
        <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 RESEND 0/9] Some fixes for spi-s3c64xx

On Thu, 1 Oct 2020 at 21:44, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 09:02:57PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>
> > That is correct. We did not provide final comments on the list so they
> > could be added here - in change log. This would also be an explanation
> > why there is a resend. Another solution would be to extend the commit #7
> > description - why only CMU case is covered.
>
> If there's a new changelog then it's not a resend, the changelog is part
> of the content so I'd expect a version bump for that alone.  IIRC the
> changelog needed some clarification anyway?

Yes, documenting the non-CMU case in changeloge would be good. It
should be also v3 because of another reason: two patches got reordered
to a more meaningful position in patchset, which brought minor
differences in them.

Best regards,
Krzysztof