linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 03/43] ptrace: change signature of arch

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: <201008271628.40023.arnd@arndb.de>
Date:	Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:28:39 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>
Cc:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 03/43] ptrace: change signature of arch_ptrace()

On Friday 27 August 2010, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> change type of @addr and @data into unsigned long.
> 
> NOTE: This patch might break build if applied alone so should be used with
> your arch counterpart.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>

Would it be possible to rearrange your patches so that you don't break
anything in the middle? I think merging all the trivial 'change signature'
patches into one would also make reviewing easier. Nobody in their
right mind is looking through a full series of 43 patches, especially
if they do not make sense on their own, but one patch that changes a
function signature tree-wide would be looked at by many people and can
be applied standalone.

It does make sense to keep the 'foo: clean up arch_ptrace' patches
separate though, since they are also useful on their own and need
real review by the arch maintainers.

	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/