linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] tty: 8250: Add more support for and fix up Brainboxes cards

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:   Fri, 22 Sep 2023 12:09:56 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Cameron Williams <cang1@...e.co.uk>
Cc:     jirislaby@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-serial@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] tty: 8250: Add more support for and fix up
 Brainboxes cards

On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 10:56:43AM +0100, Cameron Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 11:19:27AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 11:29:14PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 10:13:33PM +0100, Cameron Williams wrote:
> > > > Add support for the rest of the Brainboxes range of serial cards,
> > > > except the 3-port variants as there is no suitable configuration
> > > > in this driver.
> > > > 
> > > > - The pci_ids.h file has been updated to define each card's ID, cleaner
> > > > than using the raw ID.
> > > 
> > > That's not happening in this patch, are you sure you got this correct?
> > 
> > And where are patches 1-3 of this series?
> > 
> Patches 1 to 3 were cc'd to the LKML [1][2][3].

Please use scripts/get_maintainer.pl to send them to all of the proper
people/lists next time.

> 
> Please disregard this patch series. Bjorn [maintainer of the PCI subsystem]
> has declined the pci_ids.h update so I will have to v2 this series using
> raw hex IDs. I guess thats what I get for doing kernel work without putting in
> enough time to check everything :(. Sorry for the mess.
> 
> With regard to the 8250_pci.c file in particular, should I split each change
> into its own commit? I just want to avoid merge conflicts, and making all the
> changes in one commit made more sense to me but rules are rules, so I will
> follow them to get these devices supported. I'm still sort of new to patching
> like this so sorry for any mistakes :(.

Each patch should be a single logical change.

Don't worry about merge conflicts, where would the conflict come from,
and what is being merged anywhere else?

thanks,

greg k-h