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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 29 Oct 2021 11:09:20 +0800
To:     Marcel Holtmann <>
Cc:     Matthias Kaehlcke <>,
        Johan Hedberg <>,
        Luiz Augusto von Dentz <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        linux-bluetooth <>,
        MSM <>,
        Balakrishna Godavarthi <>,, Hemantg <>,
        Rocky Liao <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Bluetooth: btusb: Add support for variant WCN6855 by
 using different nvm

Thanks Marcel for the reply, I will do as what you said , thank you.


On 2021-10-28 22:00, Marcel Holtmann 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.
> 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