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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 20:31:59 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> To: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu Cc: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, 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, Sep 07, 2007 at 01:10:54PM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote: > 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"...) I think that'd be Reviewed-By. While you are not part of the smokey room cabal you have shown technical expertise in various areas so it seems perfectly fine to have reviewed-by from you. The fix vs a previous version should probably be just in the text with a paragraph ala: Issue blah in a previous version as found by Valdis Kletnieks has been fixed by doing foo. - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists