linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 net 0/2] vmxnet3: couple of fixes

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: <67387f4f-5ece-fb9c-ae4a-2589cc7a34a5@intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 28 Nov 2022 15:52:24 -0800
From:   Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To:     Ronak Doshi <doshir@...are.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     VMware PV-Drivers Reviewers <pv-drivers@...are.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 net 0/2] vmxnet3: couple of fixes



On 11/28/2022 11:50 AM, Ronak Doshi wrote:
> This series fixes following issues:
> 
> Patch 1:
>    This patch provides a fix to correctly report encapsulated LRO'ed
>    packet.
> 
> Patch 2:
>    This patch provides a fix to use correct intrConf reference.
> 
> Changes in v1:
> - declare generic descriptor to be used
> 
> Ronak Doshi (2):
>    vmxnet3: correctly report encapsulated LRO packet
>    vmxnet3: use correct intrConf reference when using extended queues
> 
>   drivers/net/vmxnet3/vmxnet3_drv.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>   1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 

It looks like you sent a bunch of versions rapidly, and you submitted an 
unversioned series followed by one with v1. That can make it difficult 
to track which is the most recent version and which one a reviewer 
should leave feedback on.

Typically it is assumed that the first submission is "v1" even if it 
doesn't include "v1" in its title. Thus your second submission would 
normally be "v2".

Thanks,
Jake