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
| ||
|
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists