linux-kernel - Re: Should MODULE_DESCRIPTION be mandatory ?

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]

Message-ID: <20090416112543.GA2672@uranus.ravnborg.org>
Date:	Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:25:43 +0200
From:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To:	devzero@....de
Cc:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Should MODULE_DESCRIPTION be mandatory ?

> > 
> 
> i can offer spending an afternoon (or more) on compiling a list of modulenames + missing description for review.
> if that list is complete and ack`ed, i could create a patch or patch series from that. 
> (maybe the list could be split into logical parts, too)

If you do this then you should feed the patches via the maintainers.
I suggest to start out with the network stuff and see if netdev/David Miller
will take them.

	Sam
--
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/