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 03:28:47 +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,

Thanks for your patches.

> 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?

Besides, youre mails are not threaded, They look like:

   Mar 19 Sam Edwards     (2.3K) [RESEND RFC PATCH 0/5] Enhancements for mv64xxx I2C driver
   Mar 19 Sam Edwards     (2.3K) [RESEND RFC PATCH 1/5] i2c: mv64xxx: Clear bus errors before transfer
   Mar 19 Sam Edwards     (2.3K) [RESEND RFC PATCH 2/5] i2c: mv64xxx: Clean up the private data struct
   Mar 19 Sam Edwards     ( 15K) [RESEND RFC PATCH 3/5] i2c: mv64xxx: Refactor FSM
   Mar 19 Sam Edwards     (5.2K) [RESEND RFC PATCH 4/5] i2c: mv64xxx: Allow continuing after read
   Mar 19 Sam Edwards     ( 11K) [RESEND RFC PATCH 5/5] i2c: mv64xxx: Implement I2C_FUNC_NOSTART

instead of

   Mar 19 Sam Edwards     (2.3K) [RESEND RFC PATCH 0/5] Enhancements for mv64xxx I2C driver
   Mar 19 Sam Edwards     (2.3K) ├─>[RESEND RFC PATCH 1/5] i2c: mv64xxx: Clear bus errors before transfer
   Mar 19 Sam Edwards     (2.3K) ├─>[RESEND RFC PATCH 2/5] i2c: mv64xxx: Clean up the private data struct
   Mar 19 Sam Edwards     ( 15K) ├─>[RESEND RFC PATCH 3/5] i2c: mv64xxx: Refactor FSM
   Mar 19 Sam Edwards     (5.2K) ├─>[RESEND RFC PATCH 4/5] i2c: mv64xxx: Allow continuing after read
   Mar 19 Sam Edwards     ( 11K) └─>[RESEND RFC PATCH 5/5] i2c: mv64xxx: Implement I2C_FUNC_NOSTART

Which is the default of "git format-patch".

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.

If you are using some weird mail client, you can also check the
mail header, making sure that mails from 1 to 5 have the field:

   In-Reply-To: <Message-Id of patch 0>

Andi