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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <Y+6LBeMIxXDw0JF7@imac101> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2023 20:59:01 +0100 From: Alain Volmat <avolmat@...com> To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> Cc: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard@...s.st.com>, Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@...com>, Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>, Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>, Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>, "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Amit Kucheria <amitk@...nel.org>, Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>, Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] ARM: removal of STiH415/STiH416 remainings bits On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 10:13:20AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 10:12:25 +0100 Alain Volmat wrote: > > Having seen situations like that for some other series I was guessing > > that each maintainer would apply the relevant patches on his side. > > Those two platforms being no more used, there is no specific patch > > ordering to keep. > > > > I've actually been wondering at the beginning how should I post those > > patches. If another way is preferrable I can post again differently > > if that helps. > > You'd have most luck getting the changes accepted for 6.3 if you split > this up and resend to individual maintainers. Alright, since those patches do not have real dependencies between each others, I won't update this serie and send the patches separately to their related maintainers.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists