linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: duplicate patches in the regulator tree

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: <4bb56093-5358-4d3b-aba8-f8815d2347a6@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 12:33:39 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: duplicate patches in the regulator tree

On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 08:55:10AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2024, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

> > The following commits are also in the mfd tree as different commits
> > (but the same patches):

> >   d7a5f27342a8 ("mfd: sec-core: add s2dos05 support")
> >   ef9690c04f3b ("dt-bindings: mfd: add samsung,s2dos05")

> And these ones do not follow the style expected by the subsystem.

> Mark can you please remove these without reverting and further dirtying
> MFD's history please?  One little rebase isn't going to hurt in the long
> run. :)

There's additional stuff on top of them now and I'm not clear that the
regulator patch would build without the MFD.  I don't understand why you
said to apply the patches after I'd reviewed the regulator patch,
usually you insist on waiting until all other subsystems have reviewed
before applying the MFD cores :(

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