netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/2] net: stmmac: Make stmmac_dvr

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]

Date:   Mon, 13 Feb 2023 17:36:13 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     Larysa Zaremba <larysa.zaremba@...el.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
        Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>, kernel@...gutronix.de,
        Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@...com>,
        linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] net: stmmac: Make stmmac_dvr_remove() return void

On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 17:23:33 +0100 Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > Code in both patches looks OK.  
> 
> Is this an Ack?

FWIW we encourage folks on netdev who reviewed a patch to speak up,
even if they don't feel confident enough to send a persistent tag.

> > Also, multiple patches usually require a cover letter. The code changes are 
> > trivial, so maybe the best solution would be to just to squash those patches 
> > together.  
> 
> My conclusion was a bit different: The code changes are trivial, so they
> don't require a cover letter :-)
> 
> I don't care much about squashing the two patches together. I slightly
> prefer to keep the changes as two changes as the changes are orthogonal
> and one patch per thing is the usual action.

Fair enough, 2 patches are fine w/o a cover letter.