linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ASoC: samsung: s3c24xx-i2s: Fix typo in DAIFMT handling

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]

Date:   Mon, 27 Jun 2022 14:11:13 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.cirrus.com>,
        s.nawrocki@...sung.com, jrdr.linux@...il.com, lgirdwood@...il.com,
        alsa-devel@...a-project.org, patches@...nsource.cirrus.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: samsung: s3c24xx-i2s: Fix typo in DAIFMT handling

On 27/06/2022 13:45, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 11:49:46AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 27/06/2022 11:43, Charles Keepax wrote:
>>> The conversion of the set_fmt callback to direct clock specification
>>> included a small typo, correct the affected code.
> 
>>> Fixes: 91c49199e6d6 ("ASoC: samsung: Update to use set_fmt_new callback")
> 
>> Where is this commit from? It's not in next.
> 
> 0b491c7c1b2555ef08285fd49a8567f2f9f34ff8 - if you can't find something
> search for the subject, people often get things wrong.

Finding it by subject does not solve problem with Fixes tag, that it
might be pointing to incorrect commit (e.g. rebased).

> 
>> You should put such big patchsets in your own repo (e.g. on
>> Github/Gitlab) and feed it to linux-next or at least to LKP.
> 
> The size of the patch set isn't really relevant here, the same issue can
> apply to anything that can be built in more than one configuration.
> People should of course try to do things that work but equally we
> shouldn't be putting procedural blockers in place, we have integration
> trees for a reason.

I would say that size of the patchset is a proof someone is doing bigger
work and we want the bigger work to be tested even before hitting
maintainer's tree.

My comment was not a requirement (procedural blocker) but a suggestion,
because maybe Charles was not aware that developer trees can be tested
for free.

> 
>> This way you would get build coverage... because it seems the build was
>> missing in your case.
> 
> That coverage has apparently also been missing in -next for several
> weeks.

Eh, it seems defconfigs for this old platform do not select sound, so we
rely on randconfig. :(

Best regards,
Krzysztof