linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] ARM: config: stm32: Remove useless flags

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]

Message-ID: <Z2XFJeMgUdaeAqHS@chonkvm.lixom.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 11:27:33 -0800
From: Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard@...s.st.com>,
	Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
	Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
	Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
	Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
	Yoann Congal <yoann.congal@...le.fr>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com, soc@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] ARM: config: stm32: Remove useless flags

On Fri, Dec 20, 2024 at 05:47:01PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2024, at 13:55, patrice.chotard@...s.st.com wrote:
> > From: Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard@...s.st.com>
> >
> > Running "make savedefconfig" highlights that some flags are no more used,
> > remove them.
> > Remove some flags to reduce the kernel image size as STM32 MCU's board
> > embeds low amount of RAM.
> >
> > Changes in V2:
> >   _ squash patches 2-7
> >   _ split patch 1 in three parts and add epxlanations about flags removal.
> 
> Looks good to me, thanks for the update. I assume the plan is to
> have this in another pull request rather than me picking up the
> patches directly, right?

On that note, I would *love* to no longer get patches into my inbox,
and I'll start to kindly request the senders of said patches to take
me off the recipients in the future. I'm not actively part of the soc
maintainer group any more, but I'm guessing that the others would benefit
from the same.

STM32 already has a maintainer, so there's no need to send these directly
to the soc-level maintainers, as far as I can tell. And certainly not
in the to: line (vs cc), at that.

If there's reason to send them directly, such as the platform maintainer
being unavailable or the patch being urgent as a fix, a justification
to make sure they're not missed would be useful.

-Olof