| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <54169389.6060608@codethink.co.uk> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 08:21:45 +0100 From: Rob Jones <rob.jones@...ethink.co.uk> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...ethink.co.uk Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] fs: proc: use seq_open_private() On 12/09/14 22:50, Andrew Morton wrote: > 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. Always another gotcha! :-) Seriously, does it say anywhere that patch names have to be unique? It makes perfect sense when it's pointed out but it never occurred to me. I'll make sure I don't do it again. > > I renamed them to > > fs/proc/task_nommu.c: use __seq_open_private() > fs/proc/task_mmu.c: use __seq_open_private() Thank you, much appreciated. I would have been happy to re-submit. > > I really don't understand this practice of replacing "/" with ": " in > patch titles. Why not just use the "/"? I'll do this in future too. Sigh. So much to learn. -- Rob Jones Codethink Ltd mailto:rob.jones@...ethink.co.uk tel:+44 161 236 5575 -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists