From: Lee Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] hwrng: Add support for STMicroelectronics' RNG IP Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 05:39:02 +0100 Message-ID: <20150920043902.GA3039@x1> References: <1442497557-9271-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <20150918140756.GK9249@gondor.apana.org.au> <20150918151137.GA10763@gondor.apana.org.au> <20150918155112.GE3218@x1> <20150918231213.GA14278@gondor.apana.org.au> <20150919092145.GG3218@x1> <20150920012347.GA21913@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, Peter Korsgaard , Fabio Estevam , Kieran Bingham , "kernel@stlinux.com" To: Herbert Xu Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f50.google.com ([209.85.220.50]:33828 "EHLO mail-pa0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750735AbbITEjL (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Sep 2015 00:39:11 -0400 Received: by padhy16 with SMTP id hy16so85811400pad.1 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 21:39:10 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150920012347.GA21913@gondor.apana.org.au> Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, 20 Sep 2015, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 10:21:45AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > That's not how it works. It's helpful, more often than not, to sub= mit > > the entire set to each maintainer concerned so they can keep up wit= h > > the general conversation. By only sending specific patches to > > maintainers you essentially blinker them to the bigger picture. > >=20 > > As a maintainer you should _know_ that you can't apply patches from > > other subsystems without appropriate Acks. I'm sure you'd take > > exception to another maintainer who started accepting patches for > > subsystems you are responsible for. This works both ways. >=20 > No you are mistaken. You should only put patches which have > dependencies on each other in a series. If the patches can be > applied independently of each other there is no need to have > them in a single series. That's just not true. I've explained why it's important for everyone involved to see the bigger picture. Let me use this set in an example. The patches can (and should) be applied separately, but they are heavily entwined. Let's say I only sent the ARM patch to Maxime (the STi Maintainer) and only sent you the driver and the binding document. There's a chance Maxime could apply the DTS changes prior to a proper review of the bindings. Granted, one way round this would be to place the DTS changes into a holding-pen until the binding has been accepted, but this method is highly impractical and puts unnecessary burden on the contributor. There are 1000's of examples where all parties need to see reviews on other, related but not dependant, parts of a set. For many of the sets I review it's critical for me what else is going on in related diffs. I guess for the subsystems you maintain it's less of an issue, but still, it _is_ how people tend to submit code and there is no good reason for you to dictate otherwise. > Obviously if they can go into different trees then they cannot > have dependencies. >=20 > Cheers, --=20 Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org =E2=94=82 Open source software for ARM SoCs =46ollow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog