netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] net: phy: add generic ndo_do_ioctl handler phy_do

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]

Date:   Mon, 20 Jan 2020 10:42:40 +0100 (CET)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     andrew@...n.ch
Cc:     hkallweit1@...il.com, f.fainelli@...il.com, nic_swsd@...ltek.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] net: phy: add generic ndo_do_ioctl
 handler phy_do_ioctl

From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
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.

Agreed.