netdev - Re: [PATCH][next] net/mlx5e: Remove redundant assignment

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: <20190305.190323.1175144356168830240.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Tue, 05 Mar 2019 19:03:23 -0800 (PST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     saeedm@...lanox.com
Cc:     roid@...lanox.com, leon@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        gustavo@...eddedor.com, elibr@...lanox.com,
        linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] net/mlx5e: Remove redundant assignment

From: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2019 22:21:39 +0000

> On Mon, 2019-03-04 at 08:26 +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 03, 2019 at 03:20:57PM +0000, Roi Dayan wrote:
>> > 
>> > On 02/03/2019 21:39, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> > > Remove redundant assignment to tun_entropy->enabled.
>> > > 
>> > > Addesses-Coverity-ID: 1477328 ("Unused value")
>> > > Fixes: 97417f6182f8 ("net/mlx5e: Fix GRE key by controlling port
>> > > tunnel entropy calculation")
>> > 
>> > the commit doesn't fix any real issue but is more of a cleanup.
>> > so I'm not sure if fixes line is relevant or not.
>> > beside that looks ok.
>> 
>> It doesn't matter if it is real issue or not, the code is wrong and
>> should be fixed. This alone is enough to see the Fixes line.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Acked-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...lanox.com>
> 
> Acked-by: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
> Dave, Do you think such patch should go to net, or do you want me to
> send it in my next pull request to net-next, once it is open of course
> ?

This feels more like net-next stuff to me, thanks for asking.