linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH/RFC 2.6.21] ehca: ehca_uverbs.c: refactor ehca

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:	Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:56:01 -0800
From:	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
To:	Hoang-Nam Nguyen <hnguyen@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	hch@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, openfabrics-ewg@...nib.org,
	openib-general@...nib.org, raisch@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 2.6.21] ehca: ehca_uverbs.c: refactor ehca_mmap() for better readability

I've kind of lost the plot here.  How does this patch fit in with the
previous series of patches you posted?  Does it replace them or go on
top of them?

Can please you resend me the full series of patch that remove the use
of do_mmap(), with all cleanups and bug fixes included?  And please
roll up the fixes, I don't want one patch that adds a yield() inside a
spinlock and then a later patch to fix it -- there's no sense in
adding landmines for people potentially doing git bisect in the
future.

And also please try to split the patches so that they don't mix
together two things -- please try to make the "remove obsolete
prototypes" patch separate from the mmap fixes.

Thanks...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/