netdev - Re: [PATCH 01/11] sfc: SFT9001: Enable robust link training

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: <20090130.160227.02430869.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:02:27 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	bhutchings@...arflare.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] sfc: SFT9001: Enable robust link training

From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 00:04:15 +0000

> On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 14:09 -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
> > Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 03:48:10 +0000
> > 
> > > From: Steve Hodgson <shodgson@...arflare.com>
> > > 
> > > Enable a firmware option that appears to be necessary for reliable
> > > operation.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
> > 
> > I applied all of these patches but:
> > 
> > 1) When you get changes written by other people, such as
> >    Steve Hodgson here and in the next few patches, you need
> >    to get Signed-off-by lines from them too.
> 
> I have been attributing changes to my colleagues for some time and never
> heard this.  In any case the copyright lies with my employer and I am
> authorised to release these changes; isn't that what my initial sign-
> off means?

Sure, but it is even more meaningful if the person who actually
wrote the changes signs off on it too.

> > 2) Outside of the merge window I do not want to see totally
> >    irrelevant stuff like PHY loopback fixes.
> > 
> >    Those kinds of fixes are totally inappropriate at this time.
> 
> Are you saying that a spurious self-test failure is not a serious bug?

Normal users will not run the self-test giblet, and it has
not been reported as a 2.6.29 regression on lkml.
--
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