linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/15] Introduce Nuvoton ma35d1 SoC

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:   Sat, 18 Mar 2023 10:07:50 +0100
From:   "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>
To:     "Jacky Huang" <ychuang570808@...il.com>,
        "Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        "Rob Herring" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, "Lee Jones" <lee@...nel.org>,
        "Michael Turquette" <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        "Stephen Boyd" <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        "Philipp Zabel" <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
        "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Jiri Slaby" <jirislaby@...nel.org>
Cc:     devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
        schung@...oton.com, "Jacky Huang" <ychuang3@...oton.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/15] Introduce Nuvoton ma35d1 SoC

On Sat, Mar 18, 2023, at 04:07, Jacky Huang wrote:
> On 2023/3/18 上午 12:06, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 17/03/2023 14:21, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> I only now saw that you had already submitted this several times
>>> at the beginning of last year, and this is technically 'v5'
>>> of the series, and it would make sense to add 'v6' to the subject
>>> next time and link back to the previous [1] and this[2] submission
>>> on lore.kernel.org.
>> ... and address previous feedback. Or at least make it clear in
>> changelog that you addressed it, so our review was not ignored.
>>
>
> Of course, I will add back the changelog.
>
> And, I have a question. If subsequent modifications made to a patch, 
> should the
>
> "Reviewed-by" still be valid? Can we keep it?

In general yes, but it's a bit of a grey area and you have
to apply common sense. Examples where I would drop the
Reviewed-by tag are

- if you changed something based on feedback from a reviewer and
  they provided a Reviewed-by tag based on that changed, but then
  another person asked you change the same thing differently, or
  back to the original version

- if you combine a patch with another one that was not also
  reviewed by the same person.

      Arnd