linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] iio: filter: admv8818: fix range calculation

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: <20250305142358.6c916e7c@jic23-huawei>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2025 14:23:58 +0000
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To: Sam Winchenbach <sam.winchenbach@...mepointer.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
 antoniu.miclaus@...log.com, lars@...afoo.de, Michael.Hennerich@...log.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] iio: filter: admv8818: fix range calculation

On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 08:11:17 -0500
Sam Winchenbach <sam.winchenbach@...mepointer.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 11:34:11PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 08:17:11 -0500
> > Sam Winchenbach <sam.winchenbach@...mepointer.org> wrote:
> >   
> > > Corrects the upper range of LPF Band 4 from 18.5 GHz to 18.85 GHz per
> > > the ADMV8818 datasheet
> > >   
> > Hi Sam,
> > 
> > Just a trivial process thing.  If you are sending updated code
> > and there isn't an obvious reason why when someone looks at the
> > old patch set (e.g. no reviews asking for changes etc) please
> > reply to that.
> > 
> > At times where reviewers (such as me on this occasion) are running
> > way behind they might look at wrong version otherwise.
> > 
> > Jonathan  
> 
> Hi Jonathan,
> 
> Just to clarify, if I update the patches in, for example v2, then I should
> reply to the v2 email with the new patch set?
> 
> That makes sense... it looks like I can use: "--in-reply-to=<Message-id>" with
> git send-email.

No, not that!  That needs to nested mess in complex threads.

A simple reply from an email client to say that you are revisting for
'x' reason is fine and that you either have or are about to post v3.

Thanks,

Jonathan

> 
> Sorry for any confusion this may have caused.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Sam