linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH for-5.15 v3] ASoC: Intel: boards: Fix CONFIG_SND_SOC_SDW

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:   Fri, 3 Sep 2021 17:26:39 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
Cc:     Cezary Rojewski <cezary.rojewski@...el.com>,
        alsa-devel@...a-project.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Fabio Aiuto <fabioaiuto83@...il.com>,
        Jie Yang <yang.jie@...ux.intel.com>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
        Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <liam.r.girdwood@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-5.15 v3] ASoC: Intel: boards: Fix
 CONFIG_SND_SOC_SDW_MOCKUP select

On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 08:14:30AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:

> For the record, the documentation for sending patches has the "Explicit
> In-Reply-To headers" section, which frowns on doing this for multi-patch
> series but never mentions this for single patches. I have never had a
> maintainer complain about me doing this in the over three years that I

I don't *mind*, there's just a chance I won't notice a patch that
appears in the middle of a thread which submitters tend to mind - the
issue is that I'm blissfully unaware.  It was more that you were doing
the exact same thing again in response to it being explicitly identified
as an issue.

> changelog section. Maybe the documentation could be updated to frown
> upon adding In-Reply-To headers to new versions of patches period? I can
> draft up a patch to clarify that.

Not everyone has a process which causes issues here (and even for me I'd
only notice if the old thread was still in my inbox), but I certainly
wouldn't be against it.  Note that if you're trying to make everything
super rules based you also need to cover the case of people trying to
incrementally fix a series by sending new versions of patches in the
middle of it which is an even worse mess.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)