| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20091007073806.GC31245@elf.ucw.cz> Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 09:38:06 +0200 From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp> Cc: linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [TOMOYO #16 00/25] Starting TOMOYO 2.3 On Wed 2009-10-07 13:09:24, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Hello. > > Pavel Machek wrote: > >> Since this patchset is not yet accepted, I haven't written documentation for > >> TOMOYO 2.3. You can see http://tomoyo.sourceforge.jp/1.7/policy-reference.html > >> instead. > > > >New, undocumented user/kernel api is no-no. > > I'll update api description by final submission. Well, then you'll get proper review by final submission. > >> Conventionally, patches should be submitted in the form of diff file. > >> But this time, I submit in the form of entire file due to amount of changes. > > > > That's also no-no. > > I have a question. > Is the diff file based on existing files more preferable for reviewers to > review than totally rewritten files, even if "total lines of diff files" is > close to "total lines of rewritten files"? You are expected to submit diffs in smaller steps, not "here it is, totally rewritten, take it or leave it". Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- 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