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:	Mon, 9 Jun 2008 13:48:04 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Kasper Sandberg <lkml@...anurb.dk>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make some ext3 kernel messages useful by showing device

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 15:38:10 +0200
Kasper Sandberg <lkml@...anurb.dk> wrote:

> On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 02:59 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 21:02:41 +0200 Kasper Sandberg <lkml@...anurb.dk> wrote:
> > 
> > > Hello.
> > > 
> > > Some of the ext3 warnings in super.c are not really as useful as they
> > > can be, for instance the "EXT3-fs warning: maximal mount count reached,
> > > running e2fsck is recommended" message, does not tell which device it
> > > actually is.
> > 
> > Seems sensible.
> > 
> > > Below is patch(both inlined, and in attached form, since i dont trust my
> > > mailer),
> > 
> > That really tricks me.  Because the resulting file applies nicely with
> > `patch --dry-run' but doesn't apply with plain old `patch'.  Inlined is
> > preferred, attached is grumpily accepted, but please avoid duplicating
> > the patch.
> 
> I do not know what happened, i did with diff -Naur. I attached because
> of the fact that i _KNOW_ evolution is not to be trusted with inlined,
> but i also know inlined is easier for review, even if it is not properly
> accepted as input for patch.

What happened was that you inlined the patch and also attached it.  So
when my email client does save-to-file, I get two copies of the same
patch in the one local file.  This causes me problems.

I suggest that you try to inline the patches.  Email yourself a patch,
check that it still applies.  If this ends up being too hard then sure,
use attachments, but please don't also inline the patch.

> > 
> > > to a patch which fixes that particular message, and a few more.
> > > I could look at the rest if anyones interrested?
> > 
> > We like to keep ext3 and ext4 in sync as much as poss, please.
> Yes, i will do this soon, i have a few things to do first though.

No probs, thanks.

> > 
> > > Oh, and i dont really know if this is nessecary, but:
> > > Signed-off-by: Kasper Sandberg <lkml@...anurb.dk>
> > 
> > It is very much preferred, thanks.
> > 
> > (patch retained for linux-ext4 review)
> > 
> > > 
> > > --- super.c.orig	2008-06-08 20:49:26.153047364 +0200
> > > +++ super.c	2008-06-08 20:45:20.812047463 +0200

btw, please prepare patches in `patch -p1' form.  The headers here should have
been

--- a/fs/ext3/super.c
+++ a/fs/ext3/super.c

So the patch will apply with `patch -p1' when run from the root of the
kernel tree.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists