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 <>
To:	Rob Jones <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] fs: proc: use seq_open_private()

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 08:21:45 +0100 Rob Jones <> wrote:

> On 12/09/14 22:50, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 15:09:36 +0100 Rob Jones <> 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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists