| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20111209.134514.2071890208094978847.davem@davemloft.net> Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 13:45:14 -0500 (EST) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: lersek@...hat.com Cc: ian.campbell@...rix.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com, jeremy@...p.org, xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 REPOST] xen-netfront: delay gARP until backend switches to Connected From: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@...hat.com> Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 12:38:58 +0100 > These two together provide complete ordering. Sub-condition (1) is > satisfied by pvops commit 43223efd9bfd. I don't see this commit in Linus's tree, so I doubt it's valid for me to apply this as a bug fix to my 'net' tree since the precondition pvops commit isn't upstream as far as I can tell. Where did you intend me to apply this patch, and how did you expect the dependent commit to make it's way into the tree so that this fix is complete? BTW, you should always explicitly specificy the answers to all the questions in the previous paragraph, otherwise (like right now) we go back and forth wasting time establishing these facts. The way to say which tree the patch is intended for is to specify it in the Subject like, f.e. "[PATCH net-next v3 REPOST] ..." -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists