linux-kernel - Re: Re: Re: [PATCH] kcalloc: Re-order the first two out-of-order args to kcalloc().

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612090933410.14564@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Sat, 9 Dec 2006 09:35:40 -0500 (EST)
From:	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
To:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
cc:	Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PATCH] kcalloc: Re-order the first two out-of-order
 args to kcalloc().

On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, Pekka Enberg wrote:

> On 12/9/06, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@...dspring.com> wrote:
> > no.  those two submissions represent two logically different "fixes"
> > and i have no intention of combining them.
>
> Like I said, fixing the order of kcalloc parameters with a follow-up
> patch to use kzalloc is just plain stupid. You can ignore my review
> comments all you want, but don't expect that bit to be merged. So,
> for the record: NAK for that bit of the patch, it should be
> converted to kzalloc instead. Thanks.

all right.  but it will be amusing if the resulting patch is rejected
because it combines two different fixes, won't it?  :-)

rday
-
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/