linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] irqdomain: factorise irq_domain_xlate

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: <57A062E7.1000008@laposte.net>
Date:	Tue, 2 Aug 2016 11:07:51 +0200
From:	Sebastian Frias <sf84@...oste.net>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Mason <slash.tmp@...e.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] irqdomain: factorise irq_domain_xlate_onetwocell()

Hi Thomas,

On 08/02/2016 10:31 AM, Sebastian Frias wrote:
>> So the proper way to do that is to split this into two patches:
>>
>>  #1 Change the existing code to do the masking and explain why it is correct.
>>
>>  #2 Refactor the code and get rid of the duplicated implementation.
> 
> Ok, I can do two patches.

I splitted it in two patches, one to fix it, and another one to refactor.
However, I sent the first one (the one for the fix) as a separate one, instead of as
part of a set of two patches.

I'm resending both as a set of two patches (since the second one requires the first
one), sorry for the inconvenience.

Best regards,

Sebastian