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: <4DBB469F.50804@verizon.net>
Date:	Fri, 29 Apr 2011 19:15:43 -0400
From:	Peter Foley <pefoley2@...izon.net>
To:	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>
CC:	Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>, <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 4/29/2011 7:02 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> 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 ***

Thanks for all the feedback.
I'll try to take it into account in the future.

Thanks,

Peter





--
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/