netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v1 00/13] Generic zcopy

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: <0c67ac21-4f1b-fb4d-fc66-30b3d74c7682@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 5 Jan 2021 15:45:55 -0800
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org,
        willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
        dsahern@...il.com, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1 00/13] Generic zcopy_* functions

On 1/5/21 3:40 PM, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 03:11:03PM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> On 1/5/21 2:06 PM, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
>>> From: Jonathan Lemon <bsd@...com>
>>>
>>> This is set of cleanup patches for zerocopy which are intended
>>> to allow a introduction of a different zerocopy implementation.
>>>
>>> The top level API will use the skb_zcopy_*() functions, while
>>> the current TCP specific zerocopy ends up using msg_zerocopy_*()
>>> calls.
>>>
>>> There should be no functional changes from these patches.
>>
>> Your From and Signed-off-by tags are not matching and this is likely
>> going to be flagged as an issue by Jakub and/or linux-next if/when this
>> lands. You would want to get that fixed in your v2 along with the other
>> feedback you may get.
> 
> Grr.  I don't know where this is coming from. 
> The From: line is correct, and matches my Signed-off-by.

Your email addresses are different though, From is using your fb.com
address and your Signed-off-by is with your gmail.com address so there
is something in your git configuration or in the way you
imported/formatted patches that results in this difference.
-- 
Florian