linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Introduce EC-based watchdog

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: <CAE5UKNomjYeS-GHEedfHyvAh3jAgPUaD8DkYuJ-Cv0xS6pr7pg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2024 16:10:06 +0100
From: Łukasz Majczak <lma@...omium.org>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: Gwendal Grignou <gwendal@...omium.org>, Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...nel.org>, 
	Radoslaw Biernacki <biernacki@...gle.com>, Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>, 
	Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>, 
	Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, chrome-platform@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Introduce EC-based watchdog

Ohhh, I get it now. Gunter please send reviewed-by to V3 whenever you
feel appropriate.

Best regards,
Lukasz

On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 3:50 PM Łukasz Majczak <lma@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> Gunter,
>
> I'm sorry for the confusion, I've just forgotten to add "received-by"
> and there are no other changes besides mentioned in the cover letter
> changelog.
> Thank you for mentioning the process, now I understand why it is so important.
>
> I will send V4 for the sake of following the process.
>
> Best regards,
> Lukasz
>
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 3:43 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> >
> > On 1/19/24 06:10, Łukasz Majczak wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 1:50 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-usnet> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 1/19/24 00:43, Lukasz Majczak wrote:
> > >>> Chromeos devices are equipped with the embedded controller (EC)
> > >>> that can be used as a watchdog. The following patches
> > >>> updates the structures and definitions required to
> > >>> communicate with EC-based watchdog and implements the
> > >>> driver itself.
> > >>>
> > >>> The previous version of this patch was sent here:
> > >>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-watchdog/list/?series=817925
> > >>>
> > >>> Changelog
> > >>> V2->V3:
> > >>> * drop "-drv" from driver name
> > >>> * use format #define<space>NAME<tab>value
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> I am a bit lost here. You dropped my Reviewed-by: tags, even though
> > >> I specifically said that they applied with those changes made.
> > >> Also, according to the above patch 1/3 was not changed at all.
> > >>
> > >> What else did you change that warrants dropping the tags ?
> > >>
> > >> Guenter
> > >>
> > > The "-drv" change was related to patch 2 and 3, and I have used
> > > "format #define<space>NAME<tab>value" only in patch 3 (as
> > > ec_commands.h is mixing those)
> > > Sorry for dropping your "Reviewed-by" tag :( I've assumed (wrong) that
> > > I cannot take it for granted sending V3.
> >
> >  From Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:
> >
> > Both Tested-by and Reviewed-by tags, once received on mailing list from tester
> > or reviewer, should be added by author to the applicable patches when sending
> > next versions.  However if the patch has changed substantially in following
> > version, these tags might not be applicable anymore and thus should be removed.
> > Usually removal of someone's Tested-by or Reviewed-by tags should be mentioned
> > in the patch changelog (after the '---' separator).
> >
> > > Alos in such a case if there are changes in patch 2 and 3 and 1
> > > remains untouched shall I send only 2 and 3 in the next version ?
> > >
> >
> > Again, from Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:
> >
> > ... the patch (series) and its description should be self-contained.
> > This benefits both the maintainers and reviewers.  Some reviewers
> > probably didn't even receive earlier versions of the patch.
> >
> > Note that the same document also says:
> >
> > Wait for a minimum of one week before resubmitting or pinging reviewers
> > - possibly longer during busy times like merge windows.
> >
> > I could just send another series of Reviewed-by: tags, but quite frankly
> > by now I am wary that you might drop those again, so I guess I'll wait
> > a while to see if there is another version of the series.
> >
> > Guenter
> >