linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] Docs: proc: fix kernel version

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:	Wed, 22 Apr 2015 02:58:50 +0000
From:	"Chen, Hanxiao" <chenhanxiao@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Nathan Scott <nathans@...hat.com>,
	"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jiri Kosina <trivial@...nel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] Docs: proc: fix kernel version

Hi,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Corbet [mailto:corbet@....net]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 8:14 PM
> To: Chen, Hanxiao/陈 晗霄
> Cc: Andrew Morton; Nathan Scott; linux-doc@...r.kernel.org;
> linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Jiri Kosina
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Docs: proc: fix kernel version
> 
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 22:48:23 -0400
> Chen Hanxiao <chenhanxiao@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> 
> Thank you for working to update the documentation!  That said, though, I
> have a question and a request with regard to this particular change.
> 
> > -Table 1-2: Contents of the status files (as of 3.20.0)
> > +Table 1-2: Contents of the status files (as of 4.1)
> 
> That file is full of weird version numbers; is there a reason why you want
> to change that one in particular?  The 2.6.8-rc3 reference immediately
> afterward doesn't seem more worthy of protection.
> 

commit 15eb42d674de8da66950f78b5c7202accabe026e
had updated Table 1-2 in this doc.

When we posted it, we thought it's for in 3.20.
Now it comes to mainline from mm tree, it's 4.1 now.
So I think we need a surplus patch for it.

Also, patch Reviewed-by: Nathan Scott <nathans@...hat.com>

> This file is dramatically out of date in general.  Rather than change the
> version number at the head of the list of status files, why not update the
> list to match current reality?  There are a lot of things missing.
> 
> Failing that, I would entertain a patch that simply removes most of the
> version numbers from this file; I don't think they provide any useful
> information, and I certainly don't see the value of occasionally tweaking
> them forward.

Before someone could be able to update the whole file,
keeping version numbers still help.

Regards,
- Chen

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> jon