linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/10] drivers/i2c/busses: Don't let i2c adapters declare I2C_CLASS_SPD support if they support I2C_CLASS

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: <19d86ace-a0ea-41d4-82d7-e77ef79e58f7@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 Nov 2023 22:58:53 +0100
From:   Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
To:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>,
        linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] drivers/i2c/busses: Don't let i2c adapters declare
 I2C_CLASS_SPD support if they support I2C_CLASS_HWMON

On 23.11.2023 21:57, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> 
>> Series was created supported by Coccinelle and its splitpatch.
> 
> I don't know splitpatch. However, I don't understand its result. Why
> isn't there one patch for all in drivers/i2c/busses? Also, the subject
> prefix should be plain "i2c: <do x for all drivers>" or something.
> 

AFAIK splitpatch uses get_maintainer.pl and creates one patch per
maintainer(s). It's not smart enough to group changes per module.
What I see is that the subject prefix often is based on personal
preference of the subsystem maintainer, so far I don't see a rule.
Therefore splitpatch seems to use the longest common part of file
path's of grouped patches.

I'd appreciate hints on maybe better tools for creating patches for
tree-wide changes. If possible I'd like to avoid having to manually
split and adjust the patches.