netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/8] Pull request for 'davem-next.r8169' branch

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:	Sun, 11 Mar 2012 15:34:15 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	romieu@...zoreil.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, hayeswang@...ltek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/8] Pull request for 'davem-next.r8169' branch

From: Francois Romieu <romieu@...zoreil.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 23:17:51 +0100

> Please pull from branch 'davem-next.r8169' in repository
> 
> git://violet.fr.zoreil.com/romieu/linux davem-next.r8169
> 
> to get the changes below.
> 
> This patchset tidies up the dependencies within the driver. I have not
> merged the patches to avoid confusing diff.

Pulled, thanks.

> I have a patchkit similar to the last patch in the series ("r8169: stop
> using net_device.{base_addr, irq}.") for some PCI only drivers. Depending
> on the driver, it contains either a few lines of changes (~20 drivers) or
> a complete conversion to __iomem + pci_iomap (4~6 drivers). Would it be
> appropriate to send a patch per driver for the latter and only a single
> patch for the former ?

Maybe a patch per-driver for this case.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html