linux-kernel - Re: [v3] can: ucan: Use two USB endpoint API functions rather than duplicating their implementations

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: <a545127e-ee1d-44a5-bf43-149f81bda6a5@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2025 17:33:34 +0900
From: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
 Chen Ni <nichen@...as.ac.cn>, Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
 linux-can@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v3] can: ucan: Use two USB endpoint API functions rather than
 duplicating their implementations

On 29/06/2025 at 16:51, Markus Elfring wrote:
>> Please use the same email address:
> 
> You may omit the header specification “From:” (if you would find other presented
> information acceptable), don't you?

You are sending a patch which has some checkpatch warnings and you think it is
our duty to fix your mistakes? This is not how it works.

> What does hinder you to support additional email addresses better?

It is your behaviour and your unwillingness to follow the guidance from the
maintainers which hinders me. Use whatever e-mail address you want, but if you
fancy mixing different e-mail addresses, then just stop posting.

I do not want to waste any more time arguing with you.

Nacked-by: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>

(no need to reply to this thread, I will not read your post anymore).

Yours sincerely,
Vincent Mailhol