netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 2/5] net: Add ifreq pointer field to kernel_hwtstamp

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: <20230504084110.28cdc6a1@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2023 08:41:10 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Max Georgiev <glipus@...il.com>
Cc: kory.maincent@...tlin.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com, vladimir.oltean@....com,
 vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev, richardcochran@...il.com,
 gerhard@...leder-embedded.com, liuhangbin@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 2/5] net: Add ifreq pointer field to
 kernel_hwtstamp_config structure

On Thu, 4 May 2023 09:21:42 -0600 Max Georgiev wrote:
> Got it, wil update both generic_hwtstamp_get_lower() and
> generic_hwtstamp_set_lower().
> 
> What would be the best practice with updating a single patch in a
> stack (or a couple of
> patches in a stack)? Should I resend only the updated patch(es), or
> should I increment the
> patch stack revision and resend all the parches?

You'll need to resend all, but this is minor enough that, unless
there's more comments, I'd just wait until Monday and send non-RFC 
at that point (with "a" driver conversion included).