netdev - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] l2tp: Use existing macros instead of literal number

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]

Message-ID: <20160819182854.wdgnz77h2pins2c5@alphalink.fr>
Date:   Fri, 19 Aug 2016 20:28:54 +0200
From:   Guillaume Nault <g.nault@...halink.fr>
To:     fgao@...ai8.com
Cc:     jchapman@...alix.com, davem@...emloft.net,
        philipp@...fish-solutions.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        gfree.wind@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] l2tp: Use existing macros instead of literal
 number

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 05:55:26PM +0800, fgao@...ai8.com wrote:
> From: Gao Feng <fgao@...ai8.com>
> 
> 1. Use PPP_ALLSTATIONS/PPP_UI instead of literal 0xff/0x03;
> 2. Use one static const global fixed_ppphdr instead of two same
> static variable ppph in two different functions;
> 3. Use SEND_SHUTDOWN instead of literal 2;
> 
> Signed-off-by: Gao Feng <fgao@...ai8.com>
> ---
>  v1: Initial patch
> 
v1 again?

BTW, no need to number your patch for a single patch series.
But you have to tell which tree is the series for.

So instead of [PATCH v1 1/1], you should send [PATCH v2 net-next].