linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mtd: add OTP (one-time-programmable) erase ioctl

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 8 Apr 2021 09:06:32 +0200
From:   Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
To:     Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
Cc:     Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        richard@....at, vigneshr@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: add OTP (one-time-programmable) erase ioctl

Hello,

Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc> wrote on Thu, 08 Apr 2021 08:55:42
+0200:

> Hi Tudor,
> 
> Am 2021-04-08 07:51, schrieb Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com:
> > Would you please resend this patch, together with the mtd-utils
> > and the SPI NOR patch in a single patch set? You'll help us all
> > having all in a single place.  
> 
> This has already been picked-up:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mtd/linux.git/commit/?h=mtd/next&id=e3c1f1c92d6ede3cfa09d6a103d3d1c1ef645e35
> 
> Although, I didn't receive an email notice.
> 
> -michael

Sometimes the notifications are not triggered when there is a conflict
when applying the patch from patchwork directly. I usually answer
manually in this case but I might have forgotten.

About the patch, I felt it was good enough for merging, and I want to
avoid applying such patches right before freezing our branches. Hence,
I tend to be more aggressive earlier in the release cycles because I
hate when my patches get delayed infinitely. The other side is a more
careful approach when -rc6 gets tagged so that I can drop anything which
would be crazily broken before our -next branches are stalled, leading
for an useless public revert. Of course, I am fully open to removing
this patch from -next if you ever feel it was too early and will
happily get rid of it for this release: we can move the patch for the
next release if you agree on this (especially since it touches the
ABI).

Cheers,
Miquèl