MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CACXcFmkO0g2YRjvfknKXr_ZnJaMg2cpvOsLq=h1ZcB=hg9NK8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <03183ae9-3dd3-b0da-31e6-c186b2bfcfcc@csgroup.eu>
In-Reply-To: <03183ae9-3dd3-b0da-31e6-c186b2bfcfcc@csgroup.eu>
From:   Sandy Harris <sandyinchina@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 17 Nov 2021 10:36:55 +0800
Message-ID: <CACXcFmmNjSNMm4WjKUENhfzq7TrTF7eOzx5fCXQHgg9wQSu5cA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] memset() in crypto code
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu> wrote:

> I see no point in doing 8 separate patches that all have the same
> subject and the exact same light description.
>
> I think it would be better to have a single patch with all the changes,
> and use the cover letter description as description for that patch.

It seemed better to me to have separate patches because there
are 8 files involved, possibly each with a different maintainer.

Likely I should have gone further & included the filenames in
the subject: lines & maintainer addresses in cc: