linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/6] score cleanups

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200906291828.57948.arnd@arndb.de>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:28:57 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	liqin.chen@...plusct.com
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] score cleanups

On Monday 29 June 2009, liqin.chen@...plusct.com wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> 写于 2009-06-27 22:08:12:
> 
> > Hi Liqin,
> > 
> > I've gone over your code a bit with sparse and some clues,
> > cleaning up some areas that stuck out.
> > 
> > Please check that these make sense.
> 
> Hi Arnd,
> 
> Code updating had finished and verified.

Ok, I've pushed out my original patches now. Unfortunately,
the way you sent back the patches was not helpful. Your mail
client still suffers from line-wrapping, which makes it impossible
to apply and you dropped all the changelog entries that I wrote.

It took me longer to split the changes into logical patches
with an appropriate changelog, so they really should not
be merged again. If you don't have a comment for the patches,
a better action would have been to reply with 'Acked-by: 
Chen Liqin <liqin.chen@...plusct.com>'.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Chen Liqin <liqin.chen@...plusct.com>
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>

Here you mixed up the order of the 'Signed-off-by:'-lines.
If you forward a patch from someone else, you should always
put your own S-O-B after all the the others, not before them.
of(u32))) {

> @@ -151,7 +152,7 @@ int apply_relocate_add(Elf_Shdr *sechdrs, const char 
> *strtab,
>  /* Given an address, look for it in the module exception tables. */
>  const struct exception_table_entry *search_module_dbetables(unsigned long 
> addr)

This is one example of how the line wrapping broke the patch. It's basically
impossible to apply and test if the patch is broken like this.

	Arnd <><
--
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/