linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/6] percpu: Implement Preemption checks for __this

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: <20131012165120.GA15116@gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 12 Oct 2013 18:51:20 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	cl@...ux.com, tj@...nel.org, akpm@...uxfoundation.org,
	srostedt@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] percpu: Implement Preemption checks for __this_cpu
 operations V4


* David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:

> Most sites are rejecting your posting because the CC: list looked like 
> this:
> 
> Cc:	akpm@...uxfoundation.org
> Cc:	Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>
> Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> 
> Please only specify one CC: list with a comma separated list of 
> recipients.

Another problem is that the patch emails are not properly threaded to the 
0/6 patch and thus appear out of order and mixed up:

66216 N C Oct 11 Christoph Lamet (  36) [PATCH 0/6] percpu: Implement Preemption checks for __this_cpu operations V4
66217 N C Oct 11 David Miller    (  13) └─>
66218 N C Oct 11 Christoph Lamet (  43) ┬─>[PATCH 1/6] net: ip4_datagram_connect: Use correct form of statistics update
66219 N C Oct 11 Eric Dumazet    (  17) │ └─>
66220 N C Oct 11 Christoph Lamet ( 121) ├─>[PATCH 2/6] percpu: Add raw_cpu_ops
66221 N C Oct 11 Christoph Lamet ( 189) ├─>[PATCH 6/6] percpu: Add preemption checks to __this_cpu ops
66222 N C Oct 11 Christoph Lamet (  64) ├─>[PATCH 5/6] net: __this_cpu_inc in route.c
66223 N C Oct 11 Christoph Lamet ( 103) ├─>[PATCH 3/6] mm: Use raw_cpu ops for determining current NUMA node
66224 N C Oct 11 Christoph Lamet (  43) └─>[PATCH 4/6] Use raw_cpu_write for initialization of per cpu refcount.

Note how the order is 1,2,6,5,3,4 with no threading instead of 1,2,3,4,5,6 
with proper threading.

That won't cause email servers to reject the mails, it just makes the 
patches a bit harder to review.

Most kernel developers tend to use 'git send-email' to send patches to 
lkml, and that method is working pretty reliably.

The relevant 'git send-email' line is pretty well described in Greg's "The 
newbie's guide to hacking the Linux kernel" book:

  http://www.tuxradar.com/content/newbies-guide-hacking-linux-kernel

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/