netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] Fixes: 0e884c7 ipv4: L3 hash-based multipath: tag

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20151006072103.46aa2266@tyr>
Date:	Tue, 6 Oct 2015 07:21:03 +0200
From:	Peter Nørlund <pch@...bogen.com>
To:	Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] Fixes: 0e884c7 ipv4: L3 hash-based multipath:
 tag

On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 15:23:10 -0700
Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com> wrote:

> Normally the correct comment would include something like the
> following just before the signed-off-by line.
>      Fixes: 0e884c78ee19 ("ipv4: L3 hash-based multipath")
> 

Got it - I misunderstood the format. I'll submit a revised patch in just
a sec.

> I'm also kind of curious.  Why use 2147483648LL instead of just
> casting w as a u64 and shifting by 31?  It seems like that would be
> more readable.

I thought about it it creating the fix patch, but thought I'd better
keep the changes small. I'll use shift in the revised patch.

Best Regards
 Peter Nørlund
--
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