linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] linux/spi: Remove repeated struct declaration

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <161729347262.31861.6906734696742982702.b4-ty@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu,  1 Apr 2021 17:15:46 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Wan Jiabing <wanjiabing@...o.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-spi@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, kael_w@...h.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] linux/spi: Remove repeated struct declaration

On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 14:59:04 +0800, Wan Jiabing wrote:
> struct spi_transfer is declared twice. One is declared at 24th line.
> The blew one is not needed though. Remove the duplicate.

Applied to

   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/spi.git for-next

Thanks!

[1/1] linux/spi: Remove repeated struct declaration
      commit: d6644a1c2e17febf261fd692bb32271e5779bbd2

All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next
tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent to Linus during
the next merge window (or sooner if it is a bug fix), however if
problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted.

You may get further e-mails resulting from automated or manual testing
and review of the tree, please engage with people reporting problems and
send followup patches addressing any issues that are reported if needed.

If any updates are required or you are submitting further changes they
should be sent as incremental updates against current git, existing
patches will not be replaced.

Please add any relevant lists and maintainers to the CCs when replying
to this mail.

Thanks,
Mark