linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] author field in module! macro should be a array

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

Message-Id: <20250213175326.200647-1-trintaeoitogc@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 14:53:26 -0300
From: Guilherme Giacomo Simoes <trintaeoitogc@...il.com>
To: miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com
Cc: a.hindborg@...nel.org,
	alex.gaynor@...il.com,
	aliceryhl@...gle.com,
	apw@...onical.com,
	arnd@...db.de,
	aswinunni01@...il.com,
	axboe@...nel.dk,
	benno.lossin@...ton.me,
	bhelgaas@...gle.com,
	bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com,
	boqun.feng@...il.com,
	dakr@...nel.org,
	dwaipayanray1@...il.com,
	ethan.twardy@...il.com,
	fujita.tomonori@...il.com,
	gary@...yguo.net,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
	joe@...ches.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	lukas.bulwahn@...il.com,
	ojeda@...nel.org,
	pbonzini@...hat.com,
	rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
	tmgross@...ch.edu,
	trintaeoitogc@...il.com,
	walmeida@...rosoft.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] author field in module! macro should be a array

Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com> wrotes:
> I think this was a re-send -- in general, please change the title
> (e.g. increase the version number or at least add "[ PATCH RESEND" or
> similar) if you need to do a re-send, because otherwise it is hard to
> follow which is which (e.g. in Lore).
This would can be a v2, because I already sended a patch for authors. But how
this patch a lot of changes in comparison to the previous patch I was thinnk
that is better send this patch how a new patch, but maybe was be a error.

> Also, for some reason, Lore has your #2 and #3 patch in another thread
> -- please try to see if you can fix that when you send the next
> version. Both `git send-email` and `b4` should do the right thing by
> default when sending a series.
Yeah, I maked a mistake when I send via `git send-email`... inattention


Thanks,
Guilherme