linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] Bluetooth: btusb: Add support for variant WCN6855 by using different nvm

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: <a04518bd30761a2fecfbee8f435d4daf@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Thu, 28 Oct 2021 15:15:01 +0800
From:   tjiang@...eaurora.org
To:     Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
Cc:     marcel@...tmann.org, johan.hedberg@...il.com, luiz.dentz@...il.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, bgodavar@...eaurora.org,
        c-hbandi@...eaurora.org, hemantg@...eaurora.org,
        rjliao@...eaurora.org, zijuhu@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Bluetooth: btusb: Add support for variant WCN6855 by
 using different nvm

Thanks Matthias for the comments.

the conclusion is that I can continue to use this patch , right ? thank 
you.

regards.
tim


On 2021-10-27 23:59, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 02:12:07PM +0800, tjiang@...eaurora.org wrote:
>> Hi Matthias:
>>   the previous patch is submitted by zijun , as he is not working on 
>> this
>> project, I take over his job, so can we assume abandon the previous 
>> patch,
>> using my new patch ? thank you.
>> regards.
> 
> Your patch is clearly based on zijun's one, it even has the same 
> subject. A
> change of authorship shouldn't result in resetting the version number, 
> it's
> still the same patch/series. You can always add a 'Co-developed-by:' 
> tag to
> indicate that someone else contributed to a patch, or use a 'From:' tag 
> if
> you only made minor changes on top of someone else's work.
> 
> Not sure how to proceed best with the version number, especially since 
> there
> are already 3 versions of the 'new' patch. Either option can create 
> confusion,
> I guess you can continue with the new scheme, it seems the patch is 
> almost
> ready to land anyway.