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  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, 4 May 2012 10:57:05 +0200
From:	"Arend van Spriel" <>
To:	"Joe Perches" <>
cc:	"David Miller" <>,,,
Subject: Re: pull request: wireless-next 2012-05-03

On 05/03/2012 07:29 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 13:17 -0400, David Miller wrote:
>>  ...
>> -		if (hdev->discovery.type == DISCOV_TYPE_INTERLEAVED) {
>> +		if (hdev->discovery.type == DISCOV_TYPE_INTERLEAVED &&
>> +				hdev->discovery.state == DISCOVERY_FINDING) {
>> Really, we went through this a million times very recently and I'm
>> not pulling anything into my tree that has garbage like this in it.
> Perhaps the bluetooth folk can adopt using
> scripts/ --strict
> or maybe checkpatch could be changed to use
> --strict on patches in net and drivers/net
> automatically.

When the --strict option was added it made me wonder if that meant we
should add this option in Documentation/SubmittingPatches. I do not see
why the patches for net subsystem should have a different check level.
So why not do --strict by default and get rid of the option flag.

Gr. AvS

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists