netdev - Re: [PATCH 12/34] isdn/diva: Drop __TIME_

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: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1105261012360.20696@justus.melware.de>
Date:	Thu, 26 May 2011 10:15:21 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Armin Schindler <armin@...ware.de>
To:	Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>
cc:	linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/34] isdn/diva: Drop __TIME__ usage

On Wed, 25 May 2011, Michal Marek wrote:
> Dne 5.4.2011 17:10, Armin Schindler napsal(a):
>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2011, Michal Marek wrote:
>>> The kernel already prints its build timestamp during boot, no need to
>>> repeat it in random drivers and produce different object files each
>>> time.
>>
>> The module can be build separately from the kernel, therefore it can have
>> an own build timestamp.
>
> So the module timestamp and kernel timestamp vary by a couple of
> minutes. But is it really a problem?

It could be a lot more than minutes. But it isn't a problem.
I just tried to keep the sources in sync with out-of-tree version.

> I don't think so. So is there an
> objection against applying this patch?

No objection. Please go ahead with the patch.

Thanks
Armin
--
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