netdev - RE: [PATCH 2/4] rtw88: Configure the registers from rtw_bf

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: <07f52b530360452c91f3d5e405791968@realtek.com>
Date:   Thu, 5 Jan 2023 00:44:47 +0000
From:   Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@...ltek.com>
To:     Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>
CC:     "linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kvalo@...nel.org" <kvalo@...nel.org>,
        "s.hauer@...gutronix.de" <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
        "tony0620emma@...il.com" <tony0620emma@...il.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/4] rtw88: Configure the registers from rtw_bf_assoc() outside the RCU lock



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 11:44 PM
> To: Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@...ltek.com>
> Cc: linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org; kvalo@...nel.org; s.hauer@...gutronix.de; tony0620emma@...il.com;
> netdev@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] rtw88: Configure the registers from rtw_bf_assoc() outside the RCU lock
> 
> Hi Ping-Ke,
> 
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 12:48 AM Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@...ltek.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > > Reviewed-by: Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@...ltek.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>
> >
> > I think my reviewed-by should behind your signed-off-by.
> My understanding is that I have to put your Reviewed-by above my
> Signed-off-by since I added the Reviewed-by to the description.
> If the maintainer adds your Reviewed-by while applying the patch to
> the tree they will put your Reviewed-by between my Signed-off-by and
> the maintainer's Signed-off-by.
> 
> If this is incorrect then please let me know and I'll change it for v3.
> 

My original thought is to add my reviewed-by in the order like maintainer
applies the patch, but your understanding looks reasonable. Sorry for the noise.

Ping-Ke