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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 11:09:20 +0800 From: tjiang@...eaurora.org To: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org> Cc: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.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 Thanks Marcel for the reply, I will do as what you said , thank you. regards. tim 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