linux-kernel - Re: drivers/tty/serial/max310x doesn't support latest UART revision of MAX14830

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 19 Oct 2016 18:03:07 +0200
From:   "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     Roberto Manuel SARA <rmsara@...is.onmicrosoft.com>,
        "jslaby@...e.com" <jslaby@...e.com>,
        "linux-serial@...r.kernel.org" <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: drivers/tty/serial/max310x doesn't support latest UART revision
 of MAX14830

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 05:03:44PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 10:18:59AM +0200, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 08:12:13AM +0000, Roberto Manuel SARA wrote:
> > > Confidentiality Warning: This message and any
> > > attachments are intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s), are
> > > confidential, and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you
> > > are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, conversion to hard copy,
> > > copying, circulation or other use of this message and any attachments is
> > > strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the
> > > sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message and any
> > > attachments from your system. Thank-you.
> > 
> > I am not allowed to respond to such emails as it is not compatible with
> > doing work in the open for Linux.  Please remove and I will be glad to
> > reply.
> 
> INAL, but from a logical POV: When this mail was sent to a public
> mailing list, everyone could consider itself being an "intended
> recipient" which would lift all limitations. :-)

Not according to my lawyer, who is one, and whom I trust better than
random people claiming not to be one :)

thanks,

greg k-h