linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] auxdisplay: Move cfag12864b.h to the subsystem folder

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: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 20:54:02 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] auxdisplay: Move cfag12864b.h to the subsystem
 folder

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 07:48:31PM +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 6:50 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > It's a standard practice in the Linux kernel development.
> > If it's not a so critical issue, why should we rebase?
> >
> > rebasing will break SHA sums and it's not appreciated especially at the late
> > rcX weeks. Linus can even refuse to accept a PR based on this fact.
> 
> I am well aware of what rebasing does and the rules for PRs to Linus, thank you.
> 
> First of all, you should have not applied the patch this quickly.
> Nobody gave a tag for it and you yourself are the author. Even if
> someone gave you a tag, 2 days is way too little time for something
> like auxdisplay. 2 weeks would be a more reasonable time frame.
> 
> The point is: you seem to be rejecting feedback on the basis that you
> already applied a patch that you yourself authored 2 days ago. Not
> good.
> 
> Now, for branches in linux-next, what you should avoid is rebasing
> wildly, but you can still do so if needed. If you are uncomfortable
> with that, then you should avoid rushing patches to begin with so that
> you don't have to do that.
> 
> Regarding PRs to Linus, we are still in -rc4. There is plenty of time
> to bake things in `linux-next`. Unless you meant to sent this to a -rc
> release. But in that case: 1) there is no rush, 2) please see the
> first point again.

Okay, I dropped that patch from the queue.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko