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  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:   Thu, 28 Oct 2021 16:00:21 +0200
From:   Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
To:     Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
Cc:     tjiang@...eaurora.org, Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@...il.com>,
        Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-bluetooth <linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org>,
        MSM <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Balakrishna Godavarthi <bgodavar@...eaurora.org>,
        c-hbandi@...eaurora.org, Hemantg <hemantg@...eaurora.org>,
        Rocky Liao <rjliao@...eaurora.org>, zijuhu@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Bluetooth: btusb: Add support for variant WCN6855 by
 using different nvm

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.

I really don’t care much since that is for them and their company policy to figure out.

> 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.

It is a total mess already for a dead simple patch like this. And they keep messing it up differently every time.

I provided a btusb_generate_qca_nvm_name() in one of my replies, where the variant variable was declared without NULL assignment and the ram_version was converted from little endian in place. That was 28th of September and 4 patches later the patch is still not ready to be merged. The maintainer hands you the recipe and you still screw up the cake multiple times; I am just done with this.

The next version would be a v16 btw. So seriously, how can we have 15 revisions so far and still not have this in a mergable state?

Regards

Marcel

Powered by blists - more mailing lists