linux-kernel - Re:Re: Re: Re: [PATCH v2] bus: mhi: host: pci

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 10 Nov 2022 19:14:28 +0800 (CST)
From:   "Slark Xiao" <slark_xiao@....com>
To:     "Greg KH" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     mani@...nel.org, loic.poulain@...aro.org, dnlplm@...il.com,
        yonglin.tan@...look.com, fabio.porcedda@...il.com,
        mhi@...ts.linux.dev, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re:Re: Re: Re: [PATCH v2] bus: mhi: host: pci_generic: Add macro
 for some VIDs


At 2022-11-07 20:07:52, "Greg KH" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 06:26:16PM +0800, Slark Xiao wrote:
>Why all the blank lines?

163 mail automatically add it , and I forget remove it.

>
>> At 2022-11-07 17:53:57, "Greg KH" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> >On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 05:30:56PM +0800, Slark Xiao wrote:
>> >As I said, this is just a define, not a macro at all.
>> >
>> >> And could you give your comments in previous patch, not the 'final' one?
>> >
>> >I do not understand, what previous patrch?  What "final" one?  What is
>> >the "latest" patch?
>> previous patch:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20221027115123.5326-1-slark_xiao@163.com/
>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20221028023711.4196-1-slark_xiao@163.com/
>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20221102024437.15248-1-slark_xiao@163.com/
>> 
>> 'final' patch:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20221107084826.8888-1-slark_xiao@163.com/
>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20221101015858.6777-1-slark_xiao@163.com/
>
>That's 2 different versions, with a total of 3.
>
>> 
>> The 'final' patch was committed according to the advice of the feature
>> maintainer. 
>> >
>> >> In another pci_ids patch, you break it in v3 and break it here again in v2.
>> >
>> >I broke what?
>> You could have  voiced out such comment in V1, V2 before the 'final'. 
>
>We all review patches when we can.  There is no rule that people can not
>comment on newer patches, or older ones.
>
>In fact, it would be wonderful if you could take some time and review
>patches from others.  It would help your understanding of the code and
>how the kernel development process works.
>
>thanks,
>
>greg k-h
Agree with this.  But you know, 5 attempt   just for a little update  were rejected
It's so frustrating. Anyway, I re-submit another v3 patch for this change.
Please give your comment if you are free.

Thanks