linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/3] Add test to verify probe of devices from discoverable busses

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: <fb89ae5c-f3ef-49de-b93c-da6c8b92b06c@notapiano>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2024 10:12:01 -0300
From: Nícolas F. R. A. Prado <nfraprado@...labora.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, kernelci@...ts.linux.dev,
	kernel@...labora.com, Tim Bird <Tim.Bird@...y.com>,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>,
	Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/3] Add test to verify probe of devices from
 discoverable busses

On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 10:45:59AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> Life hack: Don't put RFC in the subject.  Especially if it's a v2 or
> higher.  No one reads RFC patches.

Thanks for the tip. I've had a mixed experience with RFC series in the past,
though this time around I did get some feedback on the previous versions so I
can't complain. And I wasn't expecting swift replies in the middle of the
holidays :). In any case, this should be the last RFC version as I feel like the
approach has consolidated by now.

> 
> This patchset seems like a low risk patch to apply.

That's an interesting take on the usage of RFC I hadn't considered.

Thanks,
Nícolas