linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] ath10k: skip ath10k_halt during suspend for driver state RESTARTING

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: <CA+ASDXNLnb4OEZtFVb4D64QNkK=sGYUUVuZPwO1-zOOD0hfqyg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 27 Apr 2022 13:27:40 -0700
From:   Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
To:     Abhishek Kumar <kuabhs@...omium.org>
Cc:     kvalo@...nel.org, quic_wgong@...cinc.com,
        Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        ath10k <ath10k@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "<netdev@...r.kernel.org>" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ath10k: skip ath10k_halt during suspend for driver
 state RESTARTING

On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 10:20 PM Abhishek Kumar <kuabhs@...omium.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 3:34 PM Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org> wrote:
> > You could have retained my:
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
> >
> > but no worries; it's just a few characters ;)
> Oh! sorry about that, I was under the impression that if the next
> iteration is posted, then I cannot just add the Reviewed-by tag
> provided in the previous iteration by myself.

You certainly *can* add it, but it's a judgment call on whether you
should. In this case, you were only making cosmetic changes (commit
message and comments, requested by reviewers) between versions, so IMO
that's totally fine. If there are more substantial changes between
versions, it may be better to skip it, and let the reviewer re-review.
Sometimes a reviewer might even explicitly say, "with changes X and Y,
consider this Reviewed-by: foo <foo@....tld>", which is a pretty
strong indication you can add it.

Anyway, it's probably better to omit a review line that should have
been included, rather than include one that should not have been
(e.g., because undesirable changes were made). So again, no worries
from me!

Brian