linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ASoC: intel: remove unused variable

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <56D70EC1.6020807@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 02 Mar 2016 21:33:13 +0530
From:	Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC:	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
	Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	alsa-devel@...a-project.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: intel: remove unused variable

On Wednesday 02 March 2016 06:50 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 12:27:09PM +0000, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
>> Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com> wrote:
>
>>> My From: is Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...ill.com>
>>> and my Signed-off-by: is Sudip Mukherjee <sudip.mukherjee@...ethink.co.uk>
>
>>> My From name and Signed-off name matches. But my emails donot match.
>
>> Which is fine - unless you are submitting patches to Mark 8). I also
>> usually split my email address and GregKH doesn't seem to mind at all.
>
> I usually end up applying but I don't like having to think about it and
> normally only for people I recognise both addresses and all the names
> for - there's a lot of places that can fall over.

I was suspecting that since this is a new email address so you objected 
whereas you have seen my vectorindia email many times so you got used to 
it. :)
Let me use my new email address the way I was using my old address and 
you will see its same "me".

> I've noticed an
> increase in the number of people missing out signoffs recently for some
> reason so anything that looks like a non-author message is a red flag.
>
>> The other option I suppose would be to put both addresses in the signed
>> off by sequence, but that probably causes confusion
>
> The other option is to just not use the work address if you don't want
> to use it (that's what I do).

Since I use my work resources and office working hours to generate and 
submit patches so I think I should use my work address as signoff.

regards
sudip