linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] fs: proc: use seq_open

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: <20140912145019.9e1665011c2d2e9bcb55f0c1@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Fri, 12 Sep 2014 14:50:19 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Rob Jones <rob.jones@...ethink.co.uk>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...ethink.co.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] fs: proc: use seq_open_private()

On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 15:09:36 +0100 Rob Jones <rob.jones@...ethink.co.uk> wrote:

>   fs: proc: use __seq_open_private()
>   fs: proc: use __seq_open_private()

See the problem?  We have two different patches, both named the same.

I renamed them to

	fs/proc/task_nommu.c: use __seq_open_private()
	fs/proc/task_mmu.c: use __seq_open_private()

I really don't understand this practice of replacing "/" with ": " in
patch titles.  Why not just use the "/"?
--
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/