On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 14:18:22 -0700 Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 22:07:10 +0100 David Laight wrote: > > On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 13:23:11 -0700 > > Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 6 Jun 2026 21:26:07 +0100 [email protected] wrote: > > > > From: David Laight <[email protected]> > > > > > > Could you be so very kind to read the automated message you received > > > when you posted this? > > > > Looks like I managed to send two patches for files in the same directory > > that contained equivalent fixes. > > > > I think I should be able to merge the patch emails into one and send > > as a single V2 patch that contains both changes. > > Not what I asked you. > > You seem to be following the ML yet you excreted a bunch of incorrectly > formatted and likely useless patches. Read the email. Start with one > or two submissions at a time. I got an email containing: It looks like you reposted this series less than 24 hours after the previous version. Please allow at least 24 hours between versions so that reviewers across all time zones have a chance to look at the previous version. That happened because patches 0013 and 0014 (of 0089) ended up with the same subject line when I generated one patch for each affected file. Pretty much all the patches replace strcpy() with either strscpy() or (when strlen() has already been done) memcpy(). -- David
