Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+\[NETLINK\]\s+unify\s+checkings\s+for\s+clean\s+messages\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+\[NETLINK\]\s+unify\s+checkings\s+for\s+clean\s+messages\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH] [NETLINK] unify checkings for clean messages (score: 1): Author: ita Singhvi <niv@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 22:18:32 +0100; David S. Miller wrote: Why don't you bypass all the cleanup diffs and just do the functionality change instead? When you mix whitespace and coding style cleanups with real changes, it puts your real; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00390.html (15,710 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH] [NETLINK] unify checkings for clean messages (score: 1): Author: @xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 02:16:59 +0100; introduces the new function called netlink_process_skb that does the sanity checkings for received messages. 02xfrm.patch: the modification to make xfrm_user use such new function. 03rtnetlink.patch:; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00410.html (8,646 bytes)
3. [PATCH] [NETLINK] unify checkings for clean messages (score: 1): Author: Pablo Neira <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 22:18:32 +0100; Why don't you bypass all the cleanup diffs and just do the functionality change instead? When you mix whitespace and coding style cleanups with real changes, it puts your real changes at risk if we; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01410.html (15,939 bytes)
4. Re: [PATCH] [NETLINK] unify checkings for clean messages (score: 1): Author: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 02:16:59 +0100; 01process_skb.patch: introduces the new function called netlink_process_skb that does the sanity checkings for received messages. 02xfrm.patch: the modification to make xfrm_user use such new functi; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01430.html (8,764 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]