linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/9] i40e deadcoding

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]

Message-ID: <7a1575b2-f790-4376-985d-2a68f81037b4@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2025 10:36:34 -0800
From: Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
CC: <linux@...blig.org>, <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
	<edumazet@...gle.com>, <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	<intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/9] i40e deadcoding



On 1/4/2025 8:16 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu,  2 Jan 2025 17:37:08 +0000 linux@...blig.org wrote:
>>    This is a bunch of deadcoding of functions that
>> are entirely uncalled in the i40e driver.
>>
>>    Build tested only.
> 
> Intel folks, is it okay if we take this (and the igc series)
> in directly? Seems very unlikely to require testing...

It's fine to take directly. I don't think this needs testing either.

I believe this will get picked up from here:
Reviewed-by: Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>

Thanks,
Tony