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  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]
Date:   Mon, 20 Jan 2020 10:42:40 +0100 (CET)
From:   David Miller <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] net: phy: add generic ndo_do_ioctl
 handler phy_do_ioctl

From: Andrew Lunn <>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2020 18:51:09 +0100

> Hi Heiner
>> Not yet ;) Question would be whether one patch would be sufficient
>> or whether we need one patch per driver that needs to be ACKed by
>> the respective maintainer.
> For this sort of mechanical change, i would do one patch for all
> without running, and another with running. If any driver needs more
> than a mechanical change, then do a patch per driver, and get the
> maintainer involved.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists