linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] spi: gpio: Make num_chipselect 8-bit in the struct spi_gpio_platform

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: <c7ba4e75-0577-487c-9e79-e8693bd66de9@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 22:22:44 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] spi: gpio: Make num_chipselect 8-bit in the
 struct spi_gpio_platform_data

On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 12:09:24AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

> Should I do something about the first two patches or is it fine to get them in?

Please don't send content free pings and please allow a reasonable time
for review.  People get busy, go on holiday, attend conferences and so 
on so unless there is some reason for urgency (like critical bug fixes)
please allow at least a couple of weeks for review.  If there have been
review comments then people may be waiting for those to be addressed.

Sending content free pings adds to the mail volume (if they are seen at
all) which is often the problem and since they can't be reviewed
directly if something has gone wrong you'll have to resend the patches
anyway, so sending again is generally a better approach though there are
some other maintainers who like them - if in doubt look at how patches
for the subsystem are normally handled.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)