netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/2] net/mlx4_core: clean up two functions

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:	Mon, 13 Jan 2014 11:13:12 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	pebolle@...cali.nl
Cc:	ogerlitz@...lanox.com, jackm@....mellanox.co.il,
	ronye@...lanox.com, hadarh@...lanox.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] net/mlx4_core: clean up two functions

From: Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 14:00:22 +0100

> 0) These two patches are very similar. They both clean up a function to
> help GCC understand the codeflow. Both help silence a warning.
> 
> 1) Compile tested only (on 32 bits x86). I do not have this hardware.
> 
> 2) Please note that there's no MAINTAINERS entry for mlx4_core. (Neither
> is there an entry for the MLX4 IB driver.) Shouldn't it be added? 

These patches have been rotting for a week.  I know the mlx4 folks
said the SRIOV guy inside Mellanox will look at it, but this is taking
way too long.

This is absolutely unreasonable from Paul's perspective to have to wait
this long for a review of these relatively simple patches.
--
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