[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jJNabMzjCSwFjaaF6VcBBD57gG9FgXTBgAHCmbKcb_AHw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 11:12:29 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc: Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@....com>,
"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"varun@...lsio.com" <varun@...lsio.com>,
"target-devel@...r.kernel.org" <target-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
"jiangyilism@...il.com" <jiangyilism@...il.com>,
"nab@...ux-iscsi.org" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] target/iscsi: Convert timers to use timer_setup()
On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Martin K. Petersen
<martin.petersen@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> Bart,
>
>> The tree I tested indeed includes that rebased patch. BTW, since the code
>> touched by that patch has not been modified in the past months, the rebased
>> patch is identical to the patch I posted in May 2017.
>
> OK. Just checking.
>
> So what's the plan here? Should both patches be routed through the timer
> tree?
That was my plan. Does that sound okay?
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists