linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/16] Staging: rtl8192e: Rename struct rx_ts

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]

Date:   Mon, 14 Aug 2023 10:27:17 -0700
From:   Tree Davies <tdavies@...kphysics.net>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Nam Cao <namcaov@...il.com>, philipp.g.hortmann@...il.com,
        anjan@...i.ca, error27@...il.com, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/16] Staging: rtl8192e: Rename struct rx_ts_record
 references

On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 08:30:02AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 05:15:15PM -0700, Tree Davies wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 04:11:53PM -0700, Tree Davies wrote:
> > > On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 11:13:56PM +0200, Nam Cao wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 01:16:46PM -0700, Tree Davies wrote:
> > > > > This patch series fixes checkpatch warning Avoid CamelCase, for all references
> > > > > of struct rx_ts_record, and renames them to rx_ts for consistency and 
> > > > > readability. Each patch renames references for a single function.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thank you in advance to the reviewers
> > > > > ~ Tree 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Tree Davies (16):
> > > > 
> > > > Here it says there are 16 patches, but you have only sent 6 patches. Are some
> > > > of them missing?
> > > > 
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Nam
> > > > 
> > > Thanks Nam,
> > > 
> > > Yes they are missing. git send-email errored during submition. 
> > > I will resend. 
> > > Question: In this case do I need to send it as a v2?
> > > 
> > > Tree
> > > 
> > 
> > OK, I know what happened. I was rate limited by my email provider.
> > I've requested a limit increase.
> 
> Your email provider does not allow you to send more than 7 emails at
> once?  You might want to switch companies if that's the case.

>From what I understand it is 7 email-recipients x 16 patches in the set
violates their 50 email per 5 minute policy.

> 
> > I suppose I could break up the patch-set into multiple series and label
> > them as series A, B, and C?
> 
> No, series are not labeled that way, sorry.
> 
> greg k-h