linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND RFC PATCH 0/5] Enhancements for mv64xxx I2C driver

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: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 21:54:43 +0100
From: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>
To: Sam Edwards <sam@...ingpi.com>
Cc: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...tlin.com>, 
	linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND RFC PATCH 0/5] Enhancements for mv64xxx I2C driver

Hi Sam,

On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 12:24:43AM -0600, Sam Edwards wrote:
> On 3/20/24 20:28, Andi Shyti wrote:
> > > Sorry about the resend; it seems my mail client "helpfully" swallowed the
> > > newlines on any line consisting only of whitespace, garbling the patches.
> > 
> > I received three series from you:
> > 
> >   1. [RESEND v2 RFC 1/5] i2c: mv64xxx: Clear bus errors before transfer
> >   2. [RFC PATCH 0/5] Enhancements for mv64xxx I2C driver
> >   3. [RESEND RFC PATCH 0/5] Enhancements for mv64xxx I2C driver
> > 
> > By the versioning, 1. is good, the rest is not good. Standing to
> > the time sent and comments in patch '0', 3. is good, the rest
> > not.
> > 
> > Which one should be discarded? Can you please state it clearly?

..

> I sent the series in the order 2-3-1, so 1 is the version to look at (though
> I made no content changes between resends as I was only fighting my mail
> client's formatting).

so that it's the [RFC v2 ...] the right series... are you sure?

The order of arrival is:

 1. Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 16:51:51 -0600
 2. Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 19:40:51 -0600
 3. Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 22:19:53 -0600

Anyway, I will take "1" as the good one, being a v2. I will
discard "2" and "3".

Then, please, do not forget next time the patch 0 and the
changelog.

..

> > Can you please make sure, next time (unless someone asks to
> > resend them again), that the patches are threaded? You can send
> > them to yourself first and see if they are really threaded.
> 
> Yes, definitely. I take it from your phrasing that you're willing to collect
> the scattered mails yourself this one time only? If so, thank you for
> cleaning up after my mess. :)
> 
> If not (and/or if someone else doesn't like the mess), I can always resend.
> I have already made one cleanup (removing the useless `default:` at the end
> of the FSM) so I guess it would technically be an "RFC v2" at this point.

For now no need to resend (unless someone complains). Let's give
it some time for review.

Andi