netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/2] ethernet: igb: e1000_phy: Check for ops.force_speed

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: <20201103103940.2ed27fa2@kicinski-fedora-PC1C0HJN.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
Date:   Tue, 3 Nov 2020 10:39:40 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>
Cc:     Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
        Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
        Jeffrey Townsend <jeffrey.townsend@...switch.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        John W Linville <linville@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ethernet: igb: e1000_phy: Check for
 ops.force_speed_duplex existence

On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 08:35:09 +0100 Paul Menzel wrote:
> According to *Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1* [3], it’s my 
> understanding, that it is *not* required. The items (a), (b), and (c) 
> are connected by an *or*.
> 
> >         (b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best
> >             of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source
> >             license and I have the right under that license to submit that
> >             work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part 
> >             by me, under the same open source license (unless I am
> >             permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated
> >             in the file; or  

Ack, but then you need to put yourself as the author, because it's
you certifying that the code falls under (b).

At least that's my understanding.