linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 21/23] regulator: dt-bindings: update samsung,s2mpa01.yaml reference

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: <YW/3z1HBU3+WwsZu@sirena.org.uk>
Date:   Wed, 20 Oct 2021 12:04:47 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 21/23] regulator: dt-bindings: update
 samsung,s2mpa01.yaml reference

On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 07:30:13AM +0100, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> escreveu:

> > For a case like this where there's no
> > dependencies or real relationship between the patches it's probably
> > better to just not thread everything and send the patches separately to
> > everyone, the threading is just adding noise and confusion.

> It is not that easy, unfortunately. On some cases (specially due to
> DT binding renames) some patches change the context of a hunk, affecting
> a subsequent patch.

If that's the case then the cover letter really needs work to make this
clear, I couldn't tell that there was any risk of dependencies nor would
I expect any for such trivial changes.

> I tried a couple of times in the past to send the patches individually,
> but that was messier, as there was harder for people to apply them,
> as, instead of running b4 just once to get everything, maintainers
> would need to apply each patch individually. Also, there were cases
> where the patch order would be relevant, due to context changes.

You could also send a per subsystem series if there's a concern about it
being hard to pick up individual patches.

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