linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH-RT] preempt.h: Fix implicit declaration of 'preempt_check_resched

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: <CAONaPpGrmKq-CE3RQzLnKqCZV0DRm9niR+3eeywUFtGkYoL5Uw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 8 Mar 2012 22:04:32 +0100
From:	John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-RT] preempt.h: Fix implicit declaration of 'preempt_check_resched_rt'

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 14:22 -0600, Clark Williams wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 15:17:20 -0500
>> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 21:13 +0100, John Kacur wrote:
>> > > When building a non-preempt kernel where CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT is not
>> > > defined the following build break occurs.
>> > >
>> > > /home/jkacur/linux-rt/block/blk-softirq.c: In function ‘trigger_softirq’:
>> > > /home/jkacur/linux-rt/block/blk-softirq.c:54: error: implicit declaration of function ‘preempt_check_resched_rt’
>> > > make[2]: *** [block/blk-softirq.o] Error 1
>> > > make[1]: *** [block/blk-softirq.o] Error 2
>> > > make: *** [sub-make] Error 2
>> > >
>> > > This patch fixes the build error by adding a define to the
>> > > !CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT section.
>> > >
>> > > Signed-off-by: Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>
>> >
>> > Why Clark's SOB? Did he write it and send it to you?
>>
>> I suppose to be technically correct it should have been a Tested-by:
>>
>> John found it while I was working on it and I tested it for him.
>
> Either a "Reported-by" if you mentioned it to John and he fixed it, or a
> "Tested-by" if he fixed it and you tested it. You can have both if that
> is true too.
>
> But "Signed-off-by" has supposed legal significance. It means that you
> are responsible for this patch. Either you authored it, or it went
> through you to get to the git repo (ie. you are the maintainer that took
> the patch).
>
> All other tags are FYI only. Only the SOB is required and has real
> meaning. Also, you should *never* add a SOB to a patch without the
> person explicitly giving it to you.
>
> -- Steve
>

Good, understood. Please change to

Tested-by: Clark Willilams <williams@...hat.com>
Signed-off-by: John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>

Note that the patch is for 3.2.9-rt17

Thanks
--
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/