netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH 0/3] qlge: Size RX buffers based on MTU.

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, 16 Oct 2009 19:22:10 -0700
From:	Ron Mercer <ron.mercer@...gic.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 0/3] qlge: Size RX buffers based on MTU.

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 05:51:42PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Ron Mercer <ron.mercer@...gic.com>
> Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:15:33 -0700
> 
> > These patches are interdependent.
> 
> No, Ron, they are absolutely not.
> 
> Apply the first patch, and that breaks the build because
> you've removed LARGE_BUFFER_SIZE but it's still referenced
> in qlge_main.c, and there are tons of other breakages too.
> 
> Don't send me garbage like this and then claim it's a set
> of independent patches.  A trivial build test would have
> shown otherwise, but you obviously didn't do that.
> 
> This is completely rediculious:

Hi Dave,

Sorry for the confusion.  I said they were 'interdependent' patches, meaning
"depending on each other".  I was trying to break this up to
make it easier to review.  Shall I send it as a single patch?

Thanks,
Ron

--
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