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: <5068B5F2.7030800@att.net>
Date:	Sun, 30 Sep 2012 16:13:22 -0500
From:	Daniel Santos <danielfsantos@....net>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	Daniel Santos <daniel.santos@...ox.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Christopher Li <sparse@...isli.org>,
	David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>,
	linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
	Pavel Pisa <pisa@....felk.cvut.cz>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/10] bug.h: Replace __linktime_error with __compiletime_error



On 09/30/2012 08:22 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 09:04:35PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 17:23 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 06:20:07PM -0500, Daniel Santos wrote:
>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Santos <daniel.santos@...ox.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  include/linux/bug.h |    2 +-
>>>>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/bug.h b/include/linux/bug.h
>>>> index aaac4bb..298a916 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/bug.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/bug.h
>>>> @@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ extern int __build_bug_on_failed;
>>>>  #define BUILD_BUG()						\
>>>>  	do {							\
>>>>  		extern void __build_bug_failed(void)		\
>>>> -			__linktime_error("BUILD_BUG failed");	\
>>>> +			__compiletime_error("BUILD_BUG failed");\
>>>>  		__build_bug_failed();				\
>>>>  	} while (0)
>>> This change should either occur as part of patch 5 or before patch 5,
>>> not after.
>> I noticed the same thing and was about to comment on it.
>>
>> Please do not break bisectablity. All your patches should compile and
>> run at every step.
> And while we're at it, every patch upstream should have a commit message
> explaining why this is done. No matter how trivial it is, because after
> a sufficient amount of time passes, everyone tends to forget why this
> has been done.
>
> Thanks.
>
Ah, well thank you all for the guidance!

Daniel
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ