linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 0/7] kbuild: move scripts/basic/docproc.c to scripts/docproc.c

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: <20110429160212.6662c08a.rdunlap@xenotime.net>
Date:	Fri, 29 Apr 2011 16:02:12 -0700
From:	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>
To:	Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>
Cc:	pefoley2@...izon.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 0/7] kbuild: move scripts/basic/docproc.c to
 scripts/docproc.c

On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 01:00:09 +0200 Michal Marek wrote:

> On 30.4.2011 00:46, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 18:38:12 -0400 Peter Foley wrote:
> > 
> >> This patchset moves scripts/basic/docproc to scripts/docproc.
> >> This causes docproc to only be built for *doc targets rather than every
> >> time the kernel is compiled.
> >>
> >> Patches also attached as requested by Michal Marek.
> > 
> > 
> > That's disappointing (the attachments).  Why was this requested?
> > 
> > See Documentation/CodingStyle, section 7:
> > 
> > "No MIME, no links, no compression, no attachments.  Just plain text."
> 
> and a couple of lines later:
> "Exception:  If your mailer is mangling patches then someone may ask
> you to re-send them using MIME."
> 
> Which is exactly what happened here - the patches had missing or excess
> leading space and in some cases a context line was missing. So instead
> of manually reconstructing the patches, I asked Peter to resend them as
> attachments.

OK, thanks for explaining.

> BUT - I didn't request to split this patch into seven pieces. Splitting
> patches into smaller parts is desired, but each part has to be self
> contained and not break stuff when the later parts are not applied. So
> when moving a .c file, then the corespoding Makefile changes need to be
> contained in the same patch. No need to resend the patch now, I'll fold
> the patches into one again, but please consider this next time.

Yes, a few of them could be merged IMO.

> > Instead, the saved file contains lines like
> > this (below) and each patch 2 times (inline and attachment).
> 
> Yeah, only sending the attachment would be better in this case.

agreed.

---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
--
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/