[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7592ccd9-9706-4174-8530-61b3eab44140@web.de>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2024 13:05:11 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Boris Tonofa <b.tonofa@...co.ru>, Petr Vaganov <p.vaganov@...co.ru>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, lvc-project@...uxtesting.org,
Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Antony Antony <antony.antony@...unet.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Stephan Mueller <smueller@...onox.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ipsec v3] xfrm: fix one more kernel-infoleak in algo
dumping
…
> ---
> v3: Corrected commit description "This patch fixes copying..." to
> "Fixes copying..." according to accepted rules of Linux kernel commits,
> as suggested by …
How do you think about to choose another imperative wording
for an improved change description?
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.12-rc2#n94
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists