netdev - Re: [PATCH REPOST 0/5] convert arm platforms to smsc911x

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: <20090119213159.GJ18301@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:31:59 +0000
From:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	Steve.Glendinning@...c.com, ian.saturley@...c.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	stanley.miao@...driver.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH REPOST 0/5] convert arm platforms to smsc911x

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 01:15:17PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Steve.Glendinning@...c.com
> Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 09:53:54 +0000
> 
> > Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk> wrote on 19/01/2009 
> > 09:22:57:
> > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 04:04:34PM +0800, stanley.miao wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 2009-01-18 at 21:53 -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > > > > I've applied patches 1 and 2, the smsc911x driver changes.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I can pull the platform changes into net-next-2.6 as well
> > > > > if people don't think there will enough conflicts to cause
> > > > > problems.
> > > > 
> > > > I think  the platform data had better stay in arm tree.
> > > 
> > > What would be the impact if patches 3 to 5 got merged before 1 and 2?
> > 
> > It would not break compilation, but it would probably break ethernet 
> > support
> > on those three platforms.
> 
> That's why I suggested they go where the dependency is for
> proper functionality.

Ok, as I see it, the files with the highest chance of conflicting
in this set are the defconfig files.

Therefore, may I suggest that the defconfig updates are split from 3-5
and sent via my tree, the remainder via davem's net-next-2.6 tree?
--
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