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 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]

Date:	Mon, 15 Sep 2014 00:27:21 -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 Mon, 15 Sep 2014 08:21:45 +0100 Rob Jones <rob.jones@...ethink.co.uk> wrote:

> 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.

Not explicitly as far as I know.  Documentation/SubmittingPatches
implies it.  Search for "unique".

--
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/