netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 00/15] ARM: sun8i: r40: Add Ethernet support

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]

Date:   Fri, 4 May 2018 17:03:08 +0200
From:   Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     wens@...e.org, mturquette@...libre.com, sboyd@...nel.org,
        peppe.cavallaro@...com, robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
        broonie@...nel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, clabbe.montjoie@...il.com, icenowy@...c.io
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 00/15] ARM: sun8i: r40: Add Ethernet support

On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 02:40:42PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com>
> Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 15:12:57 +0200
> 
> > Hi Dave,
> > 
> > On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 11:06:17AM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> >> From: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>
> >> Date: Wed, 2 May 2018 00:33:45 +0800
> >> 
> >> > I should've mentioned that patches 3 ~ 10, and only these, should go
> >> > through net-next. sunxi will handle the remaining clk, device tree, and
> >> > soc driver patches.
> >> 
> >> Ok, I just noticed this.
> >> 
> >> Why don't you just post those patches separately as a series on their
> >> own then, in order to avoid confusion?
> >> 
> >> Then you can adjust the patch series header posting to explain the
> >> non-net-next changes, where they got merged, and what they provide
> >> in order to faciliate the net-next changes.
> > 
> > I now that we usually have some feedback from non-net maintainers that
> > they actually prefer seeing the full picture (and I also tend to
> > prefer that as well) and having all the patches relevant to enable a
> > particular feature, even if it means getting multiple maintainers
> > involved.
> > 
> > Just to make sure we understood you fully, do you want Chen-Yu to
> > resend his serie following your comments, or was that just a general
> > remark for next time?
> 
> Yeah, good questions.
> 
> I think it can be argued either way.  For review having the complete
> context is important.
> 
> But from a maintainer's standpoint, when there is any ambiguity
> whatsoever about what patches go into this tree or that, it is really
> frowned upon and is quite error prone.
> 
> Also, that header posting is _SO_ important.  It explains the series.
> But for these 'partial apply' situations the header posting refers
> to patches not in the series.
> 
> This looks terrible in the logs, when, as I do, the header posting
> text is added to a marge commit for the series.  People will read it
> and say "where are all of these other changes mentioned in the text?
> was this series misapplied?"
> 
> That's why, maybe after the review is successful, I want the actual
> patch series standalone with appropriately updated header posting
> text.

Ok, thanks for the explanation, that makes sense :)

Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)