linux-kernel - Re: staging: pi433: Possible bug in rf69.c

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:   Sat, 11 Nov 2017 11:42:09 +0200
From:   Marcus Wolf <marcus.wolf@...rthome-wolf.de>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:     devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: staging: pi433: Possible bug in rf69.c

Hi Dan,

thanks fot the link. I can't remeber, why and what I wanted to redo. 
Maybe there was a complaint about the format of the patch...

In that patch, we also have the topic with the '>> 3', we were 
discussing a few days ago!

I'd suggest, not to invest the history any more. I'm ok with preparing a 
new patch/new patches, so we can import the fixes.

I also have several improvements for the rf69.c, I'd like to offer.

But I still need to know when to use staging and when to use linux-next.
I don't want to prepare patches for the wrong tree.

Cheers,

Marcus

Am 11.11.2017 um 10:45 schrieb Dan Carpenter:
> On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 08:55:30AM +0100, Marcus Wolf wrote:
>> Hi Dan,
>>
>> I checked it on my local SVN. You are right. I submitted the code with '&'.
>> Accodring to a check-in message on my SVN, there was a bugreport end of
>> July and most probably a patch - either from me, you, Joseph Wright,
>> Colin King or Julia Lawall, changing '&' to '|'. I guess the patch for
>> some reason wasn't accepted, but fortunatley I introduced the change to
>> my SVN.
> 
> You sent the patch, but then talked about sending a new version so
> that's why it wasn't merged.  Greg probably would have merged it as-is
> if it hadn't sounded like you were going to redo it.
> 
> http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/pipermail/driverdev-devel/2017-July/108821.html
> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>