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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2013 10:41:36 +0200 From: Ivajlo Dimitrov <ivo.g.dimitrov.75@...il.com> To: "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> CC: devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ivaylo Dimitrov <freemangordon@....bg>, pavel@....cz, pali.rohar@...il.com, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Staging: TIDSPBRIDGE: Remove UUID helper On 06.12.2013 17:10, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org wrote: > On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 08:05:38AM +0200, Ivajlo Dimitrov wrote: >> Hi Greg, >> >> On 01.12.2013 19:07, Ivaylo DImitrov wrote: >>> From: Ivaylo Dimitrov <freemangordon@....bg> >>> >>> Custom uuid helper function is needed only in rmgr/dbdcd.c and doesn't >>> need to be exported. It can also be made way simpler by using sscanf. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Ivaylo Dimitrov <freemangordon@....bg> >>> --- >>> drivers/staging/tidspbridge/Makefile | 2 +- >>> drivers/staging/tidspbridge/gen/uuidutil.c | 85 -------------------- >>> .../tidspbridge/include/dspbridge/uuidutil.h | 18 ---- >>> drivers/staging/tidspbridge/rmgr/dbdcd.c | 42 +++++++++- >>> 4 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 108 deletions(-) >>> delete mode 100644 drivers/staging/tidspbridge/gen/uuidutil.c >>> >> I guess the initial mail somehow didn't make it through your spam filter: >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/12/1/70 > It did, but I thought that people asked for it to be changed in the > thread afterwards, so I was expecting an updated version from you. > > Care to fix things up and resend it? > > thanks, > > greg k-h Sure, the change I was asked for is trivial, but I didn't get the reason why it is needed. Neither there is a reply to my follow-up comment [0]. Sorry, I am pretty much new on LKML and could miss things that are supposed to be clear from the start, but my impression is that when someone says "it is better", he/she should explain why it is better or at least what is wrong with the patch he/she wants to be changed. However, I don't want to enter some arguing loop, so if you think I should change the code as per Joe's comment, just confirm it and I'll do it. Thanks, Ivo [0] https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/12/1/113 -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists