netdev - RE: [PATCH 1/2] qed: Replace memset with eth_zero

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:   Mon, 16 Jan 2017 17:05:05 +0000
From:   "Mintz, Yuval" <Yuval.Mintz@...ium.com>
To:     "mayhs11saini@...il.com" <mayhs11saini@...il.com>
CC:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] qed: Replace memset with eth_zero_addr

> > On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 11:38:30PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> >>
> >> Please do not ever submit two patches which have the same exact
> >> commit header line, as these two patches do.
> >>
> >> When someone looks into the shortlog of GIT history all they will see
> >> is "qed: Replace memset with eth_zero_addr" twice.
> >>
> >> This gives the reader no idea what might be different between those
> >> two changes.
> >>
> >> Therefore you must give unique a commit header text for each change,
> >> which communicates sufficiently what is different in each change.
> >
> > Thanks a lot for correcting me. I'll take care of this thing.
> >
> > I'm resending these two patches as
> > 	1). qed: Replace memset with eth_zero_addr
> > 	2). qed: Use eth_zero_addr
> >
> > I hope it resolves same commit header line conflict.
> 
> You aren't understanding the point.
> 
> Those two lines still say exactly the same thing.
> 
> What is different about these two changes?  The answer to that question
> must propagate into those lines of text.

Other than the fact these 2 patches change 2 different qed files,
is there any significant difference between what each does?
If not, why not simply do both in a single patch?