linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND 0/5] LED1202 / leds-st1202 fixes and improvements

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:
 <CWLP123MB5473AD120D1AA064D44B10C7C5FF2@CWLP123MB5473.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 15:54:19 +0000 (GMT)
From: Manuel Fombuena <fombuena@...look.com>
To: Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>
cc: Manuel Fombuena <fombuena@...look.com>, pavel@....cz, corbet@....net, 
    linux-leds@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, 
    linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 0/5] LED1202 / leds-st1202 fixes and
 improvements

On Thu, 13 Feb 2025, Lee Jones wrote:

> Stripping the separators from patch file names and pasting them
> culminates in a terrible summary.  In no way does this cover-letter
> describe what you're trying to achieve, why you're trying to achieve it
> and the consequences for not applying the set.  Nor does it communicate
> any merge intentions (which is required due to the assumptions made, as
> described in our previous conversation).

Do the messages in the diff section of the patches need similar 
improvements?

--
Manuel Fombuena