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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 12:00:23 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> To: Kumar Gala <galak@...nel.crashing.org> CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, sfr@...b.auug.org.au, paulus@...ba.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Rename get_property to of_get_property: drivers/net Kumar Gala wrote: > > On May 2, 2007, at 9:17 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > >> Kumar Gala wrote: >>> On Apr 28, 2007, at 10:47 PM, David Miller wrote: >>>> From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> >>>> Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 11:44:46 +1000 >>>> >>>>> So can I take this as a future OK for architecture specific network >>>>> drivers changes to go through the architecture trees (cc'd to you)? >>>> >>>> It's been my experience that if I'm just working through some >>>> platform or bus specific API changes, people like Jeff tend to >>>> not mind if it goes via ARCH trees and the like. >>> Is this acceptable? Just want to make sure before I ask Paul to >>> pull some changes that touches the following drivers: >>> drivers/net/fs_enet/mac-scc.c | 2 +- >>> drivers/net/ucc_geth.c | 30 ++++---- >>> drivers/serial/cpm_uart/cpm_uart_cpm1.c | 4 +- >>> drivers/serial/cpm_uart/cpm_uart_cpm2.c | 4 +- >> >> I don't see a patch, just a diffstat. > > I haven't sent a patch, just asking the question if I need to break it > up or not. Without seeing the patch, I have no idea... Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists