linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] x86/rtc: Remove unused intel-mid.h

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: <77d906e6-ff0c-489a-bc2b-5342196eb4b1@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2024 08:43:47 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Mateusz Jończyk <mat.jonczyk@...pl>,
 Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
 Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
 x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] x86/rtc: Remove unused intel-mid.h

On 3/5/24 08:36, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> Ahh, thanks for the context.  Any chance you could share that up front
>> next time? 😉
> Hmm... I'm not sure how. If it's a cover letter, then it requires a series,
> which seems an overkill, commenting on a single patch sounds a bit weird to
> me.

I honestly don't care how you do it.  You could send all the patches in
a series and ask the individual maintainers to pick them up
individually.  Or send cc all the maintainers and ask _one_ of them to
pick up all of the patches.  Or just mention in the changelog of the
singleton patch that it's part of a (slightly) larger effort, then Link:
over to the other related ones.

Seriously, the only way to go wrong is to just pretend that this patch
*is* a singleton when it's not.