linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] regulator: Minor regulator documentation fixes.

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <6f7e03d21850bd28d7b8195113e25f8c42cc79e6.camel@fi.rohmeurope.com>
Date:   Thu, 19 Aug 2021 11:55:27 +0000
From:   "Vaittinen, Matti" <Matti.Vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>
To:     "broonie@...nel.org" <broonie@...nel.org>
CC:     "lgirdwood@...il.com" <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: Minor regulator documentation fixes.


On Thu, 2021-08-19 at 12:43 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 08:06:48AM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> 
> > I was thinking of that. I thought that it made less of a hassle
> > with
> > single patch. After all, both changes were doc updates - and I
> > didn't
> > think the typofix warranted backport or a Fixed tag.
> > Could you please educate me & explain why would you have preferred
> > two
> > patches? (I see you any ways applied this so I guess there's no
> > need to
> > split & resend - thanks).
> 
> It's two changes that don't overlap in any way.  Part of the reason
> for
> splitting patches up is that it reduces the cogantive load checking
> that
> the patch actually does the thing described in the changelog, with
> two
> changes in one patch you need to hold two things in your head at
> once.
> The more trivial the patch the bigger the extra effort relative to
> what
> they'd have taken otherwise.

Fair enough. Thanks for explanation.

--Matti