linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] net: netrom: refactor code in nr_add

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:   Sun, 22 Oct 2017 20:39:42 -0500
From:   "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     ralf@...ux-mips.org, wharms@....de, linux-hams@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] net: netrom: refactor code in nr_add_node


Quoting David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>:

> From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com>
> Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 20:08:40 -0500
>
>> Code refactoring in order to make it easier to read and maintain.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <garsilva@...eddedor.com>
>
> Gustavo, always when reposting a new version of a patch that is part of
> a series you must _always_ repost the entire patch series.
>

OK. I got it.

> Also, a proper patch series must begine with a "[PATCH 0/2] ..."
> header posting explaining at a high level what the patch series
> is doing, how it is doing it, and why it is doing it that way.
>

Yeah, in this case I thought there was no need for this as both  
patches are not actually related in terms of functionality. But now  
that I'm writing this, maybe that is precisely the reason why I should  
have posted such header...?

Thanks
--
Gustavo A. R. Silva