linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/52] USB: store owner from modules with usb_serial_register

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZjTDKKiYhU7zC9Sb@hovoldconsulting.com>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2024 12:57:44 +0200
From: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/52] USB: store owner from modules with
 usb_serial_register_drivers()

On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 11:49:53AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 15/04/2024 10:54, Johan Hovold wrote:

> > No, sending 51 trivial one-line cleanup patches like this is not
> > acceptable.
> > 
> > This is just one logical change so squash them all into one patch for
> > the entire subsystem (i.e. this series should contain two patches).
> 
> Sure. This is not exactly one logical change, but two, because the first
> patch might fix some drivers which forgot to set the owner (even if I
> did not identify them).

Sorry if this wasn't clear enough, but I was referring to the last 51
one-line patches being one logical change (and hence the series should
contain two patches as I mentioned).

Johan