netdev - Re: [RFC] net: documentation: build a directory structure for drivers

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]

Date:   Wed, 05 Dec 2018 11:30:20 -0800 (PST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com
Cc:     corbet@....net, oss-drivers@...ronome.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        jesse.brandeburg@...el.com, dsahern@...il.com, jiri@...nulli.us,
        stephen@...workplumber.org, henrik@...tad.us,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] net: documentation: build a directory structure for
 drivers

From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 23:34:55 -0800

> On Tue, 04 Dec 2018 21:13:27 -0800 (PST), David Miller wrote:
>> From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
>> Date: Mon,  3 Dec 2018 17:43:28 -0800
>> 
>> > Documentation/networking/ is full of cryptically named files with
>> > driver documentation.  This makes finding interesting information
>> > at a glance really hard.  Move all those files into a directory
>> > called device_drivers (since not all drivers are for device) and
>> > fix up references.
>> > 
>> > RFC v0.1 -> RFC v1:
>> >  - also add .txt suffix to the files which are missing it (Quentin)
>> > 
>> > Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
>> > Reviewed-by: Quentin Monnet <quentin.monnet@...ronome.com>
>> > ---
>> > I'm posting as an RFC to see what the general feeling is about
>> > such a patch.  I can split into per-driver changes later if that's
>> > the best way forward.  
>> 
>> I'm fine with this patch as-is.
>> 
>> Do you mind if I just apply it to net-next?
> 
> Not at all.  

Ok, done.