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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6bc09c91-14b7-f28d-4f1f-f243f12b2940@egil-hjelmeland.no>
Date:   Mon, 31 Jul 2017 17:08:12 +0200
From:   Egil Hjelmeland <privat@...l-hjelmeland.no>
To:     Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>,
        andrew@...n.ch, f.fainelli@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: dsa: lan9303: Simplify
 lan9303_xxx_packet_processing() usage

On 31. juli 2017 17:01, Vivien Didelot wrote:
> Hi Egil,
> 
> Egil Hjelmeland <privat@...l-hjelmeland.no> writes:
> 
>> Would doing
>>
>> -	chip->ds = dsa_switch_alloc(chip->dev, DSA_MAX_PORTS);
>> +	chip->ds = dsa_switch_alloc(chip->dev, LAN9303_NUM_PORTS);
>>
>> at the same time be good, or breaking the scope of the patch?
> 
> It is indeed out of scope. You may want to add a first commit "net: dsa:
> lan9303: introduce LAN9303_NUM_PORTS" for instance.
> 

In a later series I assume? Or is allowed to add patches to a series
under review?


> 
> Thanks,
> 
>          Vivien
> 

Egil

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ