netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/1] net: sctp: bug fixing when sctp path recovers

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]

Date:	Wed, 13 Nov 2013 22:31:39 +0100
From:	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
To:	Chang <changxiangzhong@...il.com>
CC:	Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>, nhorman@...driver.com,
	davem@...emloft.net, linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	dreibh@...ula.no
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] net: sctp: bug fixing when sctp path recovers

On 11/13/2013 10:23 PM, Chang wrote:
[...]
> Let's say the following condition
> A - the initial revision
> B - something was wrong that introduced a bug
> C - latest revision
> MyFix - fixing the bug caused by B. Shall I specify B or C in the "fixes:" tag?
>
>
>          revision introduces a bug
>           |
> A -> B -> C ->MyFix
>                   |
>                   latest revision

You would specify B in the "Fixes:" tag, as B introduced this bug first.
In case there is no suitable git-blame information available in the current
tree (so that bug is pre Linux-2.6.12-rc2 which I believe on a quick look
that this seems the case), you can omit that. Then, just elaborate on the
commit message, and resubmit with feedback from Vlad included, too.

Thanks !
--
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