linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] Staging: octeon: octeon-stubs: remove all typedef

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2024020428-bridged-isolating-0443@gregkh>
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2024 17:23:06 -0800
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Ettore Forgiarini <ettorenigma@...il.com>
Cc: richardcochran@...il.com, ozlinux@...mail.com,
	linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Staging: octeon: octeon-stubs: remove all typedef

On Sun, Feb 04, 2024 at 04:36:03PM +0100, Ettore Forgiarini wrote:
> Removed all typedef so the code conform with code style
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ettore Forgiarini <ettorenigma@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/octeon/octeon-stubs.h | 48 +++++++++++++--------------
>  1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)

Where is patch 1/2 of this series?

Also, my bot complains:

--------------

Hi,

This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.  You have sent him
a patch that has triggered this response.  He used to manually respond
to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept
writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was
created.  Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem
in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux
kernel tree.

You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s)
as indicated below:

- This looks like a new version of a previously submitted patch, but you
  did not list below the --- line any changes from the previous version.
  Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the
  kernel file, Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for what
  needs to be done here to properly describe this.

If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about
how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and
Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
from other developers.

thanks,

greg k-h's patch email bot