linux-kernel - Re: [v2 PATCH] arm64: dts: stratix10: add new compatible for Intel SoCFPGA Stratix10 platform

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:   Fri, 21 Jul 2023 11:35:33 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     "Li, Meng" <Meng.Li@...driver.com>,
        "dinguyen@...nel.org" <dinguyen@...nel.org>,
        "robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org" 
        <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        "conor+dt@...nel.org" <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [v2 PATCH] arm64: dts: stratix10: add new compatible for Intel
 SoCFPGA Stratix10 platform

On 21/07/2023 11:29, Li, Meng wrote:
>>>>>> NAK, don't fake reviews. This very impolite and destroys entire trust.
>>>>>> The model of upstream collaboration depends on the trust, which is
>>>>>> now gone for Windriver.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No! I don't fake a tag.
>>>>
>>>> Really? Then I ask second time - from where did you get it? Provide a link.
>>>>
>>>
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230718030851.2014306-1-Meng.Li@windrive
>>> r.com/T/
>>
>> So where is it? You pointed to your email. Where is the tag?
>>
> 
> Sorry! Maybe I have wrong understanding about TAG.
> From my perspective, If reviewers ask question or give some advices to the patch, I need to add the tag to v2.

This is some crazy idea. So you want to sprinkle some tags, just because
someone disagrees with your patch and explicitly gives you a NAK, which
means NOT-Ack, Not-acknowledge, not accepted, not in good shape.

I actually wonder why adding an acknowledging tag for the patch, if I
disagreed and gave you NAK. Following your logic, this should be a NAK
tag. This I could understand. But giving acknowledge when I clearly said
patch is wrong?

Read all process documents before submitting new patches:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/

> If it is not allowed, I apologize for that.

Best regards,
Krzysztof