netdev - Re: [PATCH 3/8] Sometimes the ISDN chip only controls the D-channel

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20120503.025059.1771068683530938115.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Thu, 03 May 2012 02:50:59 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	kkeil@...ux-pingi.de
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] Sometimes the ISDN chip only controls the D-channel

From: Karsten Keil <kkeil@...ux-pingi.de>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 08:31:57 +0200

> I did put the additional PCM infrastructure in this series, because
> the approval test was done with it in place.
> I did plan the update of the low level drivers in a separate patchset
> from the beginning.
> 
> What do you prefer, adding the driver part now, as additional patch, or
> removing this additional infrastruckture part and submit it in a later
> series ?

I feel like I'm talking to a wall.

A patch should do one, and only one thing.  It should not have
changes which are unrelated to that one thing.

What part of this is so hard to understand?

To make matters worse, you didn't even make a mention of those
unrelated changes in your commit message.

So that patch was bogus on at least two counts.
--
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