linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 13/17] regulator: stm32-pwr: remove MODULE

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: <ZAOmNCVtEIgXYhJ9@sirena.org.uk>
Date:   Sat, 4 Mar 2023 20:12:36 +0000
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Nick Alcock <nick.alcock@...cle.com>
Cc:     mcgrof@...nel.org, linux-modules@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Hitomi Hasegawa <hasegawa-hitomi@...itsu.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
        linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/17] regulator: stm32-pwr: remove MODULE_LICENSE in
 non-modules

On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 06:30:02PM +0000, Nick Alcock wrote:
> On 3 Mar 2023, Mark Brown outgrape:

> > on.  If there are no strong interdependencies then it's generally
> > simplest to just send the patches separately to avoid any
> > possible confusion.

> The cover letter was sent to every related mailing list (or at least it
> was for patch series 2 and 5+: scripting problems blocked 3 and 4,
> sorry), which is what the LWN article on big patch series which I'm
> following recommended: <https://lwn.net/Articles/585782/>. I didn't want
> to spam actual maintainers with more info than that, since presumably
> they follow related-according-to-maintainer.pl lists anyway.

> As for copying everyone on a 121-patch monster like this... well, I
> think everyone would have wanted to throttle me, and I'm not sure they'd
> have been wrong.

So given that there's no depenencies between the patches this
seems like a good candidate for not sending as a series in the
first place.

> I don't think anyone has previously suggested making it 121 individual
> patches with no cover letter whatsoever. As it is, those series that
> accidentally went out without cover letters properly Cc:ed confused some
> maintainers because of the lack of the cover letter. My apologies.

It's really quite common for people to just send lots of
individual patches when there's no interdependencies - a lot of
the generated cleanups do that.

> It does seem this is an area where I can't please everyone. Some people
> don't want to be Cc:ed, others want everyone Cc:ed on all of them: some
> people want series, others want individual patches for everyone. I can't
> do both. Sorry about that.

The important thing isn't so much the specific thing as making it
clear what's going on - if you send a series with no information
about the how the series should be handled it's unclear what's
going on.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)