linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7] USB: serial: cp210x: Add support for GPIOs on CP2108

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: <YGwltSD+iEPmRblS@kroah.com>
Date:   Tue, 6 Apr 2021 11:11:17 +0200
From:   'Greg KH' <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Pho Tran <Pho.Tran@...abs.com>
Cc:     'Pho Tran' <photranvan0712@...il.com>,
        "'johan@...nel.org'" <johan@...nel.org>,
        "'linux-usb@...r.kernel.org'" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
        "'linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org'" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Hung Nguyen <Hung.Nguyen@...abs.com>,
        Tung Pham <Tung.Pham@...abs.com>,
        'Kernel test robot' <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] USB: serial: cp210x: Add support for GPIOs on CP2108

A: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post
Q: Were do I find info about this thing called top-posting?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 08:17:42AM +0000, Pho Tran wrote:
> Hi Greg!
> I am grateful for your promptly reply!
>  Yesterday, I got the response from the kernel test robot with this message: 
> " If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag as appropriate
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>". 
> It's a reason why I added "Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>" 
> to my new Patch.
> Could you tell me what I need to do in the next step to submit this patch to the kernel mainline?
> Once again, Thank you a lot!

If you fixed this as an add-on patch, yes it would belong in the
reported-by:  But as you are just fixing this up to a patch that has not
been accepted yet, all you need to do is write it in the "what changed
from the previous version" section of the changelog, below the --- line.

thanks,

greg k-h