linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] Refactor event related code

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:   Mon, 25 Sep 2017 06:16:49 -0400
From:   harinath Nampally <harinath922@...il.com>
To:     Martin Kepplinger <martink@...teo.de>
Cc:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, knaack.h@....de,
        lars@...afoo.de, Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Alison Schofield <amsfield22@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Refactor event related code

> First, this is at least v2 of this series. Second, it still seems to include
> a 4th unrelated patch.
ok I was not sure whether to make it v2 as the change was to only cover letter
and no code changes. But now I know, will send v3 of this series.

> It's sometimes not trivial to get email right. Why not test sending it privately
> to yourself first?
Sure will do, sorry for the convenience.

Thanks,
Harinath

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 6:11 AM, Martin Kepplinger <martink@...teo.de> wrote:
> Am 25.09.2017 12:07 schrieb Harinath Nampally:
>>
>> Rename some struct names and function names to
>> improve code readability.
>>
>> Harinath Nampally (3):
>>   iio: accel: mma8452: Rename structs holding event     configuration
>>     registers to more appropriate names.
>>   iio: accel: mma8452: Rename time step look up struct     to generic
>>     name as the values are same for all the events.
>>   iio: accel: mma8452: Rename read/write event value     callbacks to
>>     generic function name.
>>
>
> First, this is at least v2 of this series. Second, it still seems to include
> a 4th unrelated patch.
>
> It's sometimes not trivial to get email right. Why not test sending it
> privately
> to yourself first?