linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3]ipmi:bt-bmc:Avoid unnecessary judgement

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: <47c06465-9ae5-42c2-ca00-5c666521bbde@cmss.chinamobile.com>
Date:   Mon, 13 Apr 2020 19:56:44 +0800
From:   Tang Bin <tangbin@...s.chinamobile.com>
To:     minyard@....org
Cc:     arnd@...db.de, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        openipmi-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3]ipmi:bt-bmc:Avoid unnecessary judgement

Hi, Corey:

On 2020/4/13 19:32, Corey Minyard wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 07:59:58PM +0800, Tang Bin wrote:
>> bt_bmc_probe() is only called with an openfirmware platform device.
>> Therefore there is no need to check that the passed in device is NULL or
>> that it has an openfirmware node.
> I waited until after the merge window closed, this is queued for 5.8.
Can I consider that the patch will be applied in 5.8？
>   I
> changed the title to be "Avoid unnecessary check".
You have modified it, which means I don't need to submit a new patch？
>   "Judgement",
> although technically correct, has a legal or moral connotation.

I'm sorry, I won't use that word again.


Thanks for your instruction.

Tang Bin

>