linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] ASoC: amd: acp: Remove (explicitly) unused header

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: <aKyI4L-wMeL-TOV5@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2025 19:01:36 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-sound@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] ASoC: amd: acp: Remove (explicitly) unused header

On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 04:45:17PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 04:55:53PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 10:09:43AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > The fwnode.h is not supposed to be used by the drivers as it
> > > has the definitions for the core parts for different device
> > > property provider implementations. Drop it.
> > > 
> > > Note, that fwnode API for drivers is provided in property.h
> > > which is included here.
> > 
> > Any news here?
> 
> Please don't send content free pings and please allow a reasonable time
> for review.  People get busy, go on holiday, attend conferences and so 
> on so unless there is some reason for urgency (like critical bug fixes)
> please allow at least a couple of weeks for review.  If there have been
> review comments then people may be waiting for those to be addressed.
> 
> Sending content free pings adds to the mail volume (if they are seen at
> all) which is often the problem and since they can't be reviewed
> directly if something has gone wrong you'll have to resend the patches
> anyway, so sending again is generally a better approach though there are
> some other maintainers who like them - if in doubt look at how patches
> for the subsystem are normally handled.

I truly believe the 5 month is reasonable time for review, no?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko