linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 17/28] rcu: Make srcu_read_lock_held() call common lockdep-enabled function

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:	Thu, 03 Nov 2011 09:59:02 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
	dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	peterz@...radead.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
	eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com, patches@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 17/28] rcu: Make srcu_read_lock_held()
 call common lockdep-enabled function

On Thu, 2011-11-03 at 06:29 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 12:14:20PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 08:48:54PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 01:30:38PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
> > > > 
> > > > A common debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() function is used to check whether
> > > > RCU lockdep splats should be reported, but srcu_read_lock() does not
> > > > use it.  This commit therefore brings srcu_read_lock_held() up to date.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > 
> > > Just how signed off does this patch need to be? ;)
> 
> If you have sufficient patience to scroll past the Signed-off-by's
> to see the patch, then there clearly are not enough.  ;-)
> 
> > Dunno but I feel uncomfortable now with that strange feeling I'm walking
> > on the street with two Paul holding my hand on each side.
> 
> I did catch one of these, but missed the other.  Here is the history:
> 
> o	Paul wrote the patch.
> 
> o	Frederic reworked the patches that this one depended on,
> 	and then resent the patch.
> 
> o	Paul did "git am -s" on the series that Frederic sent,
> 	which added the extra Signed-off-by.
> 	
> It is not clear to me what the Signed-off-by chain should look like in
> this case.  My default action would be to remove my second Signed-off-by.

The author should be you (change the From: to you not Frederic), and
then the first SoB would be Frederic, and yours at the end as you
committed it.

I would also state in the change log what Frederic did to the original
patch.

-- Steve


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/