linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] xen/pcifront: Removed unnecessary _

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]

Date:   Mon, 30 Aug 2021 14:18:10 -0500
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To:     Sergio Miguéns Iglesias <lonyelon@...il.com>
Cc:     konrad.wilk@...cle.com, boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com,
        jgross@...e.com, sstabellini@...nel.org, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
        xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Sergio Miguéns Iglesias <sergio@...y.xyz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] xen/pcifront: Removed unnecessary __ref annotation

On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 10:14:26PM +0200, Sergio Miguéns Iglesias wrote:
> Thanks again for you answers!
> I am lerning a lot from your replys and I really appreciate it. Should I
> make a v3 patch and split that one into 2 different patches or would it
> be confusing?
> 
> I don't want to take more of your time with poor patches so I don't know
> if I should resend this one.

If it's already applied, it doesn't matter for this case.  But in this
situation I would generally post a v3 incorporating the feedback.  To
be respectful of reviewers' time, try to avoid posting more than one
or two revisions per week.  As long as you tag reposts appropriately
with v2, v3, etc (as you did), there's no confusion.

It's nice if you include a note about what changed between v1 and v2
in the cover letter or below the "---" line as was done here:

  https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/8f9a13ac-8ab1-15ac-06cb-c131b488a36f@siemens.com/