| 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: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 19:38:30 +0300 From: Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com> To: "Luruo, Kuthonuzo" <kuthonuzo.luruo@....com> CC: "glider@...gle.com" <glider@...gle.com>, "dvyukov@...gle.com" <dvyukov@...gle.com>, "cl@...ux.com" <cl@...ux.com>, "penberg@...nel.org" <penberg@...nel.org>, "rientjes@...gle.com" <rientjes@...gle.com>, "iamjoonsoo.kim@....com" <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>, "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "kasan-dev@...glegroups.com" <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "ynorov@...iumnetworks.com" <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] mm, kasan: improve double-free detection On 06/14/2016 09:46 AM, Luruo, Kuthonuzo wrote: >>> Next time, when/if you send patch series, send patches in one thread, i.e. >>> patches should be replies to the cover letter. >>> Your patches are not linked together, which makes them harder to track. > > Thanks for the tip; but doesn't this conflict with the advice in > https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/SubmittingPatches, specifically the > use of the "summary phrase"... > No, it doesn't. 'summary phrase' is about "Subject:" line. My point is about setting 'In-Reaply-To' which section 15) of SubmittingPatches For example, this one is good case: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/2244577 All patches are replies to the cover letter, so they are in one thread. And this is yours: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/2237786 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/2237787
Powered by blists - more mailing lists