linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] ARM: remove duplicate const qualifier

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160425103911.GO32731@imgtec.com>
Date:	Mon, 25 Apr 2016 11:39:11 +0100
From:	Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom@...tec.com>
To:	Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>
CC:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
	Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>,
	Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>,
	Alexander Shiyan <shc_work@...l.ru>,
	Krzysztof Halasa <khalasa@...p.pl>,
	Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
	Roland Stigge <stigge@...com.de>,
	Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
	Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
	Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...com>, Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>,
	Shiraz Hashim <shiraz.linux.kernel@...il.com>,
	Gregory Fong <gregory.0xf0@...il.com>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>,
	Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
	<linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>, <spear-devel@...t.st.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] ARM: remove duplicate const qualifier

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:57:15AM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> this requires a commit message.

OK? This seems rather pointless in this case (and even more so for the
typo fix I sent yesterday), but I guess you have some general rule to
enforce. Would this do then?
"The second `const` is unnecessary, and is simply ignored by most compilers."

> Also, you should think about separating those changes in multiple patches
> to ease inclusion in the kernel.

I'll resend patch #4 as multiple patches. What the way proper to convey
that *multiple* new patches replace *one* old one? Is it enough to just
send those as a reply to this one?

Cheers