linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/19] crypto: proc

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: <20100220131205.GA4948@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date:	Sat, 20 Feb 2010 21:12:05 +0800
From:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To:	Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist@...il.com>
Cc:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Benjamin Gilbert <bgilbert@...cmu.edu>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/19] crypto: proc - Fix checkpatch errors

On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 11:26:46AM +0100, Richard Hartmann wrote:
> 
> Another workflow question:
> Does LKML as a whole prefer rebased patches, patches on top of the
> old one or does not one care as long as it's clear what to apply in what
> order?
> Or does everyone have a different opionion, in which case: What is
> yours?

It depends on what you're working on.  For this case in particular,
sending the missing bits instead of the whole thing is my preferred
solution.

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
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/