[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ce3917f4-8fd5-d9b6-e481-6118cdb504f2@web.de>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 08:12:35 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Qiushi Wu <wu000273@....edu>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, oss-drivers@...ronome.com,
Kangjie Lu <kjlu@....edu>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [v3] nfp: abm: Fix incomplete release of system resources in
nfp_abm_vnic_set_mac()
> I'm curious if I could still modify these commit message information for the v1 patch,
> which has already been applied and queued up?
The maintainer found the provided information good enough.
Thus he committed the software correction with the subject
“nfp: abm: fix a memory leak bug” on 2020-05-04.
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/abm/main.c?id=bd4af432cc71b5fbfe4833510359a6ad3ada250d
So this change will probably be published “forever” since then.
I got the impression that the corresponding patch review contains helpful information.
I am curious then if it might affect the adjustment of related patches.
>> Will such considerations become relevant for any subsequent
>> software development approaches?
>
> Sorry, I actually don't familiar with these.
I am informed in the way that you can participate in university research groups.
Thus I assumed that you would like to add recent insights
from computer science areas.
I imagined that the bug report (combined with a patch) was triggered by
an evolving source code analysis approach which will be explained
in another research paper. Is such a view appropriate?
https://github.com/umnsec/cheq/
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists