linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/10] compiler{,-gcc4}.h: Introduce _

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: <506C4FD0.4040307@att.net>
Date:	Wed, 03 Oct 2012 09:46:40 -0500
From:	Daniel Santos <danielfsantos@....net>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC:	Daniel Santos <daniel.santos@...ox.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	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 7/10] compiler{,-gcc4}.h: Introduce __flatten function
 attribute

On 10/03/2012 09:01 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-10-03 at 06:20 -0500, Daniel Santos wrote:
>
>>> Daniel, please introduce __flatten in the patch series that uses it, 
>>> thanks.
>> That isn't going to work. I split my patches out into three sets
>> because, otherwise, the list of maintainers that must be CCed exceeds
>> the allowable size of the LKML server and my messages get tagged as
>> spam, causing untold confusion as messages reach maintainers, but not
>> the LKML.  Please note from the summary of this patch set
>> (https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/9/28/1136)
> That's not a valid reason to not included it with the other patch
> series.
>
>>> This patch set is a dependency of the generic red-black tree patch set, which
>>> I have now split up into three smaller sets.
>> And the patch set this depends upon was submitted 9/28 as well
>> (https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/9/28/1183) and the summary starts with this
>> text:
>>> This patch set depends upon the following:
>>> * Cleanup & new features for compiler*.h and bug.h
>>> * kernel-doc bug fixes (for generating docs)
>> If I move this patch to the other patch set,
>> scripts/get_maintainers.pl will give me a list longer than the LKML
>> administrator will allow for recipients (1024 bytes max)
> You don't need to use get_maintainers. It's more of a help tool to find
> maintainers and not something that is mandatory. Not everyone that has
> ever touched one of these files needs to be Cc'd.
>
> Please move the patch to the patch series where it is used. Otherwise it
> confuses reviewers as it did here.
Ok then, but this would also apply to the addition of these macros as well:
BUILD_BUG_ON_NON_CONST
BUILD_BUG42
BUILD_BUG_ON_NON_CONST42

Should these then also be moved?
Should I only CC those who have responded to these patches and whomever
is in the MAINTAINERS file then?

Thanks
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/