netdev - Re: [PATCH] net/ibm/emac: bump version numbers for correct work with ethtool

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: <20150925080752.14a2fee6@fr-ThinkPad-W520>
Date:	Fri, 25 Sep 2015 08:07:52 +0400
From:	Ivan Mikhaylov <ivan@...ibm.com>
To:	"David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<benh@...nel.crashing.org>, "Ben Hutchings" <ben@...adent.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/ibm/emac: bump version numbers for correct work
 with ethtool

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 11:05:49 -0700 (PDT)
"David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:

> From: Ivan Mikhaylov <ivan@...ibm.com>
> Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 14:42:22 +0400
> 
> > Register dump out work preventing with 
> > old ethtool + new driver and new ethtool + old driver.
> 
> First of all you didn't provide a proper Signoff.
> 
> Second of all, there was so much discussion about whether this does
> or does not break things for various combinations of old/new ethtool
> and kernel.
> 
> Therefore I want a real detailed commit message that explains why this
> is all OK.  After so much confusion and discussion, providing a patch
> with absolutely no commit message is completely inappropriate.

David, my apologies for signoff and description, I admit that is inappropriate.
Ben proposed one, is it eligible?
Need I resubmit patch with sign and detailed description?

--
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