linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/8] dt-bindings: vendor-prefixes: Add Black Sesame Technologies Co., Ltd.

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: <20250703050252.4104290-1-yangzh0906@thundersoft.com>
Date: Thu,  3 Jul 2025 13:02:52 +0800
From: Albert Yang <yangzh0906@...ndersoft.com>
To: krzk@...nel.org
Cc: robh@...nel.org,
	krzk+dt@...nel.org,
	conor+dt@...nel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/8] dt-bindings: vendor-prefixes: Add Black Sesame Technologies Co., Ltd.

Hi Krzysztof,

Thank you for your feedback.

> Why is this attached to v1?

I apologize for the confusion. This is indeed v2 of the patch series. The patch itself hasn't changed from v1 because it already received Rob Herring's Acked-by in the v1 review.

> Where is the changelog?

You are right to ask for this. For this specific patch (1/8), there is no changelog because it received "Acked-by: Rob Herring (Arm) <robh@...nel.org>" in v1 and required no modifications. However, I should have included a note in the cover letter explaining that some patches were unchanged from v1.

The changes in v2 were primarily in other patches of the series (DTS consolidation, defconfig separation, etc.) based on your previous review feedback.

> Most of your emails did not reach mailing list. I also did not get them.
> ... and the huge amount of CC list, mostly redundant and not relevant to
> this work, could explain that. Don't Cc random people.

You are absolutely correct, and I apologize for this. I used get_maintainer.pl without proper filtering, which resulted in an unnecessarily large CC list. For future submissions, I will:

1. Limit TO/CC to only directly relevant maintainers and lists
2. Use a more targeted recipient list
3. Consider using b4 send if delivery issues persist

> Anyway, fix above points - all three - and resend after 24h at least.

I will prepare v3 with:
1. Proper changelog documentation in the cover letter
2. Reduced and targeted recipient lists
3. Clear indication of which patches changed vs. which carried forward acks

Thank you for your patience and guidance on proper submission practices.

Best regards,
Albert Yang