linux-kernel - RE: [RESEND PATCH] time: changed timespec64_to

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:   Mon, 13 Sep 2021 06:49:27 +0000
From:   OPENSOURCE Lukas Hannen 
        <lukas.hannen@...nsource.tttech-industrial.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        "EMC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [RESEND PATCH] time: changed timespec64_to_ns to avoid underrun

> Lukas,

> why you are resending this patch?

(also ad 2,3 and 4: ) unfortunately our company mail system never showed me
your replies to my original mail.

> 1) The only change you did is adding a prefix to the subject line
>   Changed patches even if the change is just in the subject line or the
>   changelog want a version number.

I was unsure if the Subject line was considered part of the patch, and noticed
the errors in the subject line on my own, and thus thought my previous mail
got ignored because I had messed up the subject line.

>   But what's worse:
>
> 2) You ignored any other review comment I gave here:

I greatly appreciate your help in regards to commenting style and content.
I am obviously entirely new to this community.

> So what exactly are you trying to achieve by "resending" a patch which still
> does not apply and still has a non-sensical subject line and changelog?

You were right in assuming that the format of the patch was messed up by
our company mail, I am as infuriated about that as you are and will try to
change this situation asap.

The other mishaps (like the wrong use of the RESEND tag, failing to check
if the changes were already applied to your tree etc. ) were caused by me
being a young and inexperienced contributor.

> Thanks,

Thank _You_ for not immediately ignoring me forever,

Lukas Hannen

Public