linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] IB/ocrdma_hw: remove unnecessary code in ocrdma_mbx_dealloc

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]

Message-ID: <20171108141625.Horde.KGzDIfS83FFw-l2cUJ_EO95@gator4166.hostgator.com>
Date:   Wed, 08 Nov 2017 14:16:25 -0600
From:   "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc:     Selvin Xavier <selvin.xavier@...adcom.com>,
        Devesh Sharma <devesh.sharma@...adcom.com>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
        Yuval Shaia <yuval.shaia@...cle.com>,
        linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] IB/ocrdma_hw: remove unnecessary code in
 ocrdma_mbx_dealloc_lkey


Quoting Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>:

> On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 08:56:37AM -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>>
>> Quoting Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>:
>>
>> > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 08:45:17AM -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> > > Check on return value and goto label mbx_err are unnecessary.
>> > >
>> > > Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1268780
>> > > Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <garsilva@...eddedor.com>
>> > > Reviewed-by: Yuval Shaia <yuval.shaia@...cle.com>
>> > > ---
>> > > Changes in v2:
>> > >  Remove assignment from "int status = -ENOMEM" as suggested by Leon
>> > > Romanovsky.
>> > >
>> > >  drivers/infiniband/hw/ocrdma/ocrdma_hw.c | 6 ++----
>> > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > Please use git send-email to send patches and not reply to the  
>> conversation.
>> >
>>
>> I'm using mutt.
>> What would be the advantage of using git send-email in this case?
>
> New mail headers, so it won't appear as Reply-To and will be presented
> correctly in mutt's threaded mode.
>

Oh I actually did that on purpose.

So the preferred way to do this is to send the vN of the patch as a  
reply to the first patch?
or as a new thread?

Thanks
--
Gustavo A. R. Silva