linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 0/3] Add support for codec of F1C100s

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: <ZzdjlbelMywpXOAI@finisterre.sirena.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 15:07:01 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Csókás Bence <csokas.bence@...lan.hu>
Cc: linux-sound@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-sunxi@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Mesih Kilinc <mesihkilinc@...il.com>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
	Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
	Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>,
	Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/3] Add support for codec of F1C100s

On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 02:10:18PM +0100, Csókás Bence wrote:
> So, if there's no further remarks, can this be merged? The next window is
> coming up, and there's the DT addition still waiting in the pipe.

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.

Please don't top post, reply in line with needed context.  This allows
readers to readily follow the flow of conversation and understand what
you are talking about and also helps ensure that everything in the
discussion is being addressed.

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