linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Introduce configfs-based interface for gpio-aggregator

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: <CAMRc=Mf6FZgTNBGUSsm3H2nSBLbp+DpamzbZiHZ67Xc62F3QnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2025 17:10:07 +0100
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To: Koichiro Den <koichiro.den@...onical.com>
Cc: linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, geert+renesas@...der.be, 
	linus.walleij@...aro.org, maciej.borzecki@...onical.com, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Introduce configfs-based interface for gpio-aggregator

On Sat, Feb 1, 2025 at 1:26 PM Koichiro Den <koichiro.den@...onical.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 06:22:50PM GMT, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> >
> > I too think a-1 is the best option. However, I'd go for line0, line1
> > etc. convention as for computers it doesn't make any difference while
> > for humans it's more readable.
>
> Thank you for the comments. I’ll address your feedbacks and send "v2"
> later, Since we seem to agree on the overall approach, I’ll send it as
> [PATCH v1] (i.e., without the "RFC").
>

No, please don't. It'll be confusing. The RFC WAS the v1. Next
iteration must be v2 with a changelog.

Bartosz