netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/2] qed: Replace memset with eth_zero

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: <20170116174014.GB10618@mystictot>
Date:   Mon, 16 Jan 2017 23:10:14 +0530
From:   Shyam Saini <mayhs11saini@...il.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     Yuval.Mintz@...ium.com, Ariel.Elior@...ium.com,
        everest-linux-l2@...ium.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] qed: Replace memset with eth_zero_addr

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 11:46:06AM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Shyam Saini <mayhs11saini@...il.com>
> Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 14:54:35 +0530
> 
> > On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 11:38:30PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> >> 
> >> Please do not ever submit two patches which have the same exact commit
> >> header line, as these two patches do.
> >> 
> >> When someone looks into the shortlog of GIT history all they will see
> >> is "qed: Replace memset with eth_zero_addr" twice.
> >> 
> >> This gives the reader no idea what might be different between those
> >> two changes.
> >> 
> >> Therefore you must give unique a commit header text for each change,
> >> which communicates sufficiently what is different in each change.
> > 
> > Thanks a lot for correcting me. I'll take care of this thing.
> > 
> > I'm resending these two patches as 
> > 	1). qed: Replace memset with eth_zero_addr
> > 	2). qed: Use eth_zero_addr
> > 	
> > I hope it resolves same commit header line conflict.
> 
> You aren't understanding the point.
> 
> Those two lines still say exactly the same thing.
> 
> What is different about these two changes?  The answer to that question
> must propagate into those lines of text.

I got your point now. As pointed by you and Mintz,  I'll resend it
as a single patch. 

I sincerely appreciate your efforts for making things clearer and
correcting me.

Thanks a lot,
Shyam