linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v2 2/2] dt-bindings: usb: snps,dwc3: Add 'snps,global-regs-starting-offset' quirk

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: <313863df3a3b492aa7590e1354d22d8b@realtek.com>
Date:   Fri, 14 Apr 2023 02:12:11 +0000
From:   Stanley Chang[昌育德] 
        <stanley_chang@...ltek.com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
        Thinh Nguyen <Thinh.Nguyen@...opsys.com>
CC:     "linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 2/2] dt-bindings: usb: snps,dwc3: Add 'snps,global-regs-starting-offset' quirk


> >> Didn't you got already comment for this patch? How did you implement it?
> >>
> >> Also, I asked you multiple times:
> >>
> >> Please use scripts/get_maintainers.pl to get a list of necessary
> >> people and lists to CC.  It might happen, that command when run on an
> >> older kernel, gives you outdated entries.  Therefore please be sure
> >> you base your patches on recent Linux kernel.
> >>
> >> I don't understand why you ignore this.
> >>
> >> NAK, patch is not correct.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Krzysztof
> >>
> >
> > Thank you for your patient guidance.
> > Because I'm not familiar with the review process and didn't use
> scripts/get_maintainers.pl properly in the initial email thread.
> > Therefore, this series of errors was caused. Sorry for the confusion.
> > Now I know how to use the script properly.
> > After correcting the maintainer's suggestion, I'll restart a new email thread
> and review again.
> 
> Did you respond to feedback you got about the property? Did reviewer agreed
> on your view after your feedback?
> 
> If not, then why resending this patch?
> 

1. Because you said, "This patch is incorrect". And I won't be cc'ing the proper maintainer.
I think I need to restart a new review process.
2. Modify the previous reviewer's comments and fix the dtschema validation error.

Am I misunderstanding what you mean?
Can I keep reviewing this patch on this email thread until consensus is reached with the reviewers?

Thanks,
Stanley