linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] infiniband: nes: add unlikely() to assert()

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:   Fri, 7 Sep 2018 18:25:03 +0300
From:   Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...il.com>
To:     Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc:     Faisal Latif <faisal.latif@...el.com>,
        Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com>,
        Chien Tung <chien.tin.tung@...el.com>,
        Roland Dreier <rolandd@...co.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] infiniband: nes: add unlikely() to assert()

On 07/09/18 18:13, Doug Ledford wrote:

> This patch was part of a larger series on lkml.  In that context, I
> acked it so that the series could be applied by whomever took it (it
> didn't belong on rdma-list as a series since only one patch out of some
> large number touched rdma files).  Now it is being resent as not part of
> a series, but my ack was preserved.

Yes, apologies for the confusion (and maybe wrong process?).
The patchset as a whole didn't seem to gain traction, so I decided to 
fallback to the more tedious process of submitting them individually.

Since the specific patch was not altered, I assumed the ack was still 
valid - I am sorry if I did it wrongly

--
igor