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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 16:00:53 -0600
From: Sam Edwards <sam@...ingpi.com>
To: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>
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 Andi,

On 3/21/24 14:54, Andi Shyti wrote:
> so that it's the [RFC v2 ...] the right series... are you sure?

[RESEND v2 RFC ...] -- it's the second resend (thus third send), not the 
second RFC (in retrospect I definitely should have used # instead of v)

> 
> 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.

Patch 0 was probably separated by the lack of threading but can be found 
here: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-i2c/msg68235.html

There is no changelog as there were no changes to the patch content vs. 
either of the first two sending attempts; I was only trying a different 
way of navigating the minefield of mail agents that make whitespace 
changes without my consent. :)

> 
> ...
> 
>>> 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

Thanks again,
Sam