netdev - Re: [PATCH 00/40] Swap over Networked storage -v12

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]

Date:	Fri, 04 May 2007 12:54:42 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	snitzer@...il.com
Cc:	dwalker@...sta.com, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, trond.myklebust@....uio.no, tgraf@...g.ch,
	James.Bottomley@...eleye.com, michaelc@...wisc.edu,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, phillips@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/40] Swap over Networked storage -v12

From: "Mike Snitzer" <snitzer@...il.com>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 14:09:40 -0400

> These suggestions conflict in the case of a large patchset: the second
> can't be met if you honor the first (more important suggestion IMHO).
> Unless you leave something out... and I can't see the value in leaving
> out the auxiliary consumers of the core changes.

They do not conflict.

If you say you're setting up infrastructure for a well defined
purpose, then each and every one of the patches can all stand on their
own just fine.  You can even post them one at a time and the review
process would work just fine.

-
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