linux-kernel - Re: [patch 1/6] Linux Kernel Markers

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]

Message-ID: <6791.1189185054@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date:	Fri, 07 Sep 2007 13:10:54 -0400
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 1/6] Linux Kernel Markers - Architecture Independent Code

On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 12:04:45 EDT, Theodore Tso said:
> This was proposed by Andrew and discussed at the Kernel Summit; the
> basic idea is that it is a formal indication that the person has done
> a *full* review of the patch (a few random comments from the local
> whitespace police don't count),

Anybody got a proposed scheme for the case where somebody like myself
who is *not* a member of the Maintainer Cabal has looked at a patch, and
found a valid show-stopper that's bigger than just whitespace (breaks on
64-bit, locking issues, etc), or other commentary that *should* be addressed
before it gets merged?  I'd like *some* way to tag a patch with "I had an
issue with V1, but the author addressed it to my satisfaction in V2"....

(Note that includes "the author convinced me the patch was right and I was
wrong"...)

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped