netdev - Re: [PATCH net 1/1] driver: macvlan: Destroy new macvlan port if macvlan_common

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: <20161107.203332.1849719163992933801.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Mon, 07 Nov 2016 20:33:32 -0500 (EST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     fgao@...ai8.com
Cc:     kaber@...sh.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, gfree.wind@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/1] driver: macvlan: Destroy new macvlan port if
 macvlan_common_newlink failed.

From: fgao@...ai8.com
Date: Fri,  4 Nov 2016 10:28:49 +0800

> From: Gao Feng <fgao@...ai8.com>
> 
> When there is no existing macvlan port in lowdev, one new macvlan port
> would be created. But it doesn't be destoried when something failed later.
> It casues some memleak.
> 
> Now add one flag to indicate if new macvlan port is created.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Gao Feng <fgao@...ai8.com>

You need to be more patient, it sometimes take several days before
your get patch reviewed or applied.  Sometimes nobody reviews a change
for some time because it is obscure or everyone is busy.

All patches are tracked in patchwork, so it is never an issue of a
change getting "lost".  Therefore, it never makes sense to ping the
list again and ask if a change is "ok".

Personally, when people ping like that, it makes me want to review
that patch _less_ not more.  So please do not do it.

Thank you.