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  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, 23 Nov 2020 00:01:12 +0200
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To:     Christian Eggers <ceggers@...i.de>
Cc:     Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>,
        Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Petr Machata <petrm@...lanox.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>, Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] mlxsw: spectrum_ptp: use PTP wide message
 type definitions

On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 08:29:22PM +0100, Christian Eggers wrote:
> this was also not by intention. Vladimir found some files I missed in the
> first series. As the whole first series had already been reviewed at that time,
> I wasn't sure whether I am allowed to add further patches to it. Additionally
> I didn't concern that although my local build is successful, I should wait
> until the first series is applied...

When I said that, what I was thinking of (although it might have not
been clear) was that if you send further patches, you send them _after_
the initial series is merged.

Alternatively, it would have been just as valid to resend the entire
series, as a 3+3 patchset with a new revision (v3 -> v4), with review
tags collected from the first three, and the last 3 being completely
new. Jakub could have superseded v3 and applied v4.

The idea behind splicing N patches into a series is that they are
logically connected to one another. For example, a patch doesn't build
without another. You _could_ split logically-connected patches into
separate series and post them independently for review, as long as they
are build-time independent. If they aren't, well, what happens is
exactly what happened: various test robots will report build failures,
which from a maintainer's point of view inspires less confidence to
apply a patch as-is. I would not be surprised if Jakub asked you to
resend with no change at all, just to ensure that the patch series
passes build tests before merging it.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists