netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: usbnet: update addr_assign

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: <20130830.151400.1400969856580136990.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Fri, 30 Aug 2013 15:14:00 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	bjorn@...k.no
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, oneukum@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: usbnet: update addr_assign_type if appropriate

From: Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 20:56:15 +0200

> David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> writes:
>> From: Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no>
>> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 20:18:58 +0200
>>
>>> Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no> writes:
>>> 
>>>> This module generates a common default address on init,
>>>> using eth_random_addr. Set addr_assign_type to let
>>>> userspace know the address is random unless it was
>>>> overridden by the minidriver.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no>
>>> 
>>> David,
>>> 
>>> I see that this patch is marked "Changes Requested" in patchworks:
>>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/269030/
>>> 
>>> But I haven't seen any request for changes, only Olivers ack. And that's
>>> all patchworks has recorded as well. Did I miss something?
>>
>> Your v2 of this series is all marked as Under Review.
>>
>> You have to understand, wrt. your initial submission, when someone
>> asks for changes in one of the patches in a series I mark the whole
>> series as changes requested.
>>
>> This gives a second level of reminder that when one patch needs changes
>> I expect the entire series to be resubmitted.
> 
> Huh?  This patch was never part of any series.  There are no references
> or numbering in it.  I sent it as a standalone patch because the fix was
> different and not depending on the other addr_assign_type changes.

I was hoping to get this fix, via the series.  When we have multiple instances
of the same bug it makes no sense to just fix one, especially now that you're
done the work to do all of them already.
--
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