netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6 0/7] SCTP updates for net-next-2.6

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: <20110426.184757.226780553.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Tue, 26 Apr 2011 18:47:57 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	yjwei@...fujitsu.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6 0/7] SCTP updates for net-next-2.6

From: Wei Yongjun <yjwei@...fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:59:16 +0800

> And I have a stupid question about the rule of backport.  Since those
> patchs have existed so long time, when I backport those patchs, I'd better
> fix the bug in the original patch, or create new patch to fix it? Also how
> about some thing need to improvement like the ->dst_saddr() method?

I think, since these are going in as patches, you should make any
corrections to those patches by fixing the patch.

Adding new patches is just going to keep the bug in there if people
try to bisect through these changes, and that's no good.

Thanks.
--
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