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:   Wed, 9 Sep 2020 04:18:56 +0000
From:   Yoshihiro Shimoda <>
To:     David Miller <>
CC:     "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] net: phy: call phy_disable_interrupts() in
 phy_attach_direct() instead

Hi David,

> From: David Miller, Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 12:25 PM
> From: Yoshihiro Shimoda <>
> Date: Wed,  9 Sep 2020 08:55:38 +0900
> >  Changes from v1:
> >  - Fix build error.
> When such a fundamental build failure is fixed (it could never have
> built for anyone, even you), I want it explained why this happened
> and how this was functionally tested if it did not even compile.

I'm sorry about this. I used two PCs now:
 PC 1 = for testing at local
 PC 2 = for submitting patches at remote (because corporate network situation)

I tested on the PC 1.
But, after that, I modified the code on the PC 2 again. And, it seemed
I didn't do a compile. Today, I got some emails from kernel test bot.
So, I realized I had submitted a bad patch...

> I'm not applying this patch, you must resubmit it again after
> explaining what happened here instead of just quietly fixing
> the build failure.

Since the kernel test bot sent emails, I assumed I didn't need to
reply by myself. I should have replied anyway...

Best regards,
Yoshihiro Shimoda

> Thank you.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists