linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH V2 06/18] Tools: hv: Further refactor kvp_get_ip

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:	Tue, 14 Aug 2012 03:01:25 +0000
From:	KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>
To:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
CC:	"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devel@...uxdriverproject.org" <devel@...uxdriverproject.org>,
	"virtualization@...ts.osdl.org" <virtualization@...ts.osdl.org>,
	"olaf@...fle.de" <olaf@...fle.de>,
	"apw@...onical.com" <apw@...onical.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 06/18] Tools: hv: Further refactor
 kvp_get_ip_address()



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Hutchings [mailto:ben@...adent.org.uk]
> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 9:46 PM
> To: KY Srinivasan
> Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> devel@...uxdriverproject.org; virtualization@...ts.osdl.org; olaf@...fle.de;
> apw@...onical.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 06/18] Tools: hv: Further refactor kvp_get_ip_address()
> 
> On Mon, 2012-08-13 at 10:06 -0700, K. Y. Srinivasan wrote:
> > In preparation for making kvp_get_ip_address() more generic, factor out
> > the code for handling IP addresses.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: K. Y. Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Olaf Hering <olaf@...fle.de>
> > Reviewed-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
> 
> I looked at your last patch set, so in a sense these have been reviewed
> by me.  But the 'Reviewed-by' line in a commit message means the
> reviewer thinks it's OK; the reviewer must say that, and I didn't.

My mistake, sorry about that.

Regards,

K. Y