linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] greybus: checkpatch: Change parameter type unsigned to unsigned int

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]

Date:   Wed, 11 Jan 2017 15:44:53 +0100
From:   roman.sommer@....de
To:     "Johan Hovold" <johan@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Roman Sommer" <roman.sommer@....de>, linux-kernel@...cs.fau.de,
        "Rui Miguel Silva" <rmfrfs@...il.com>,
        "Johan Hovold" <johan@...nel.org>, "Alex Elder" <elder@...nel.org>,
        "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        greybus-dev@...ts.linaro.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Christian Bewermeyer" <christian.bewermeyer@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] greybus: checkpatch: Change parameter type unsigned
 to unsigned int

> You forgot to fix the Subject prefix ("staging: greybus: <summary>").
>
> Care to fix that up and resend?
>
> Thanks,
> Johan
>

As I added the fix for loopback.c, I did not include the "gpio" prefix.
This is what I thought was correct after reading your last mail.
Apparently I misunderstood.

What should the prefix be in this case?

Thanks,
Roman