linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] x86/rtc: Remove unused intel-mid.h

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: Tue, 5 Mar 2024 18:36:42 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Mateusz Jończyk <mat.jonczyk@...pl>,
	Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] x86/rtc: Remove unused intel-mid.h

On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 08:34:59AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 3/5/24 08:31, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >> Any chance you'd like to look a _bit_ more widely and just clean up all
> >> of the unnecessary intel-mid.h #includes that are scattered around?
> > All relative patches just have been sent. They are independent, hence sent
> > separately. Please, apply, what you can, if there is no objection.

> Ahh, thanks for the context.  Any chance you could share that up front
> next time? ;)

Hmm... I'm not sure how. If it's a cover letter, then it requires a series,
which seems an overkill, commenting on a single patch sounds a bit weird to
me.

> I'll stick this in the x86 queue.

Thank you!

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko