linux-kernel - Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] scripts/checkpatch: Check for Reviewed-by under --strict

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:   Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:02:05 +0100
From:   Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
To:     Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] scripts/checkpatch: Check for Reviewed-by
 under        --strict

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 04:33:10PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2016, Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> > Some subsystem polices have a strict requirement that every patch must
> > have at least one reviewer before being approved for upstream. Since
> > encouraging review is good policy (great review is even better policy!)
> > enforce checking for a Reviewed-by when checkpath is run with --strict
> > (or with --review).
> 
> Hmm, do you imply the maintainer would have to add his Reviewed-by in
> addition to Signed-off-by? I find that a bit too much (especially if you
> intend to enforce this over at our corner of the kernel ;)

I do believe we should be keeping the (our, my?) notion of review out of
the signed-off-by tag (which imo is a legal statement about the
provenance of a patch), and so yes we shouldn't be pushing patches that
haven't gone through the rite of fire and been seconded by someone else.
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre