linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 0/5] Yet another pass at machine check recovery

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:	Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:54:48 -0700
From:	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To:	"Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu" <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>
CC:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>,
	Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/5] Yet another pass at machine check recovery

> Two slightly different versions showed up here almost on top of each other.
> Which one should we be looking at? Or do you want us to ignore both and you do
> another one with REPOST in the subject?

My script that added "in-reply-to" parts 1-5 to make them thread
from part 0 got a little over-enthusiastic and started recursing
on its own output.

The second version is identical (patchwise) to the first - it just
has a bogus "From: "Luck, Tony" line added.

I don't think I need to clutter the list with a repost.

Sorry for the noise and confusion - the bad script has been
told to go sit in the corner with a paper bag on its head.

-Tony

--
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/