netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: thunderx: Fix broken of_node

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: <570815D2.5050608@caviumnetworks.com>
Date:	Fri, 8 Apr 2016 13:34:26 -0700
From:	David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	<ddaney.cavm@...il.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <rric@...nel.org>,
	<sgoutham@...ium.com>, <david.daney@...ium.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: thunderx: Fix broken of_node_put() code.

On 04/08/2016 01:15 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>
> Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 09:41:35 -0700
>
>> Due to mail server malfunction, this patch was sent twice.  Please
>> ignore this duplicate.
>
> This submission had another problem too.
>
> Do not use the date of your commit as the date that gets put into
> your email headers.

I don't.  This is standard git-send-email 1.7.11.7.

>
> This makes all of your patch submissions look like they occurred in
> the past, and this mixes up the ordering of patches in patchwork.

They did occur in the past.  Just like all e-mail you read, they were 
sent before you read them.

I ran git-send-email for this on  Thu, 31 Mar 2016 18:01:57 -0700.  I 
observed that the patch didn't seem to make it to the public lists, so I 
figured I screwed something up and I sent it again, with the same results.

Then I went on vacation, and came back today to sort everything out.  My 
MTA had died, so I restarted it, and ... the backlog of messages was 
sent and you read it.

>
> So please resubmit this properly with a normal, current, date in your
> email headers.

OK, I will resend the identical patch for the third time...