linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: allow building with kcov coverage on ARM64

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: <CAG_fn=VQjzPCeVrCLaJPnB1y4yE5z+5JAyZJgmeDiJA_upsHfg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:36:08 +0200
From:	Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
To:	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
	marc.zyngier@....com, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Quentin Casasnovas <quentin.casasnovas@...cle.com>,
	Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
	syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>,
	Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>,
	Dmitriy Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: allow building with kcov coverage on ARM64

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 6:32 PM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 05:25:31PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 04:44:12PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 05:20:03PM +0200, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
>> > > I think it's time to ask now :)
>> > > If I receive "Tested-by" or "Acked-by" responses, do I need to send
>> > > out a patch adding them, or should I rely on the maintainer taking the
>> > > patch to the tree?
>> > > The first option reduces the amount of work done by the maintainer,
>> > > while the second one reduces the traffic in the list.
>> > > Sorry, I couldn't find the answer in the manuals.
>> >
>> > It's up to the maintainer, so it varies. The best thing to do is to ask
>> > the maintainer what they'd prefer.
>> >
>> > From my experience, Catalin is usually happy to add tags, so I suspect
>> > he'd be happy to do so for this patch (assuming he's happy to pick it
>> > up). I'll leave it for him to say either way.
>>
>> I usually cherry-pick tags that I see in reply to the *latest* version
>> of the patch (I have a rudimentary script to do this).
>>
>> I noticed that there was an ack on v1 form Marc Z that's missing in v2.
>
> I believe Marc's reply [1] was to v3 [2], it's just that the version was
> missing form the subject, and discussions continued on v2 in the mean
> time.
Yes, this is correct.
>> Maybe it no longer applies, I can't tell, but I usually expect
>> subsequent versions of a patch to include all the previously given acks
>> (of course, if they still apply, sometimes a patch rewrite means
>> dropping those tags).
>
> I guess the simplest thing to do is for Alexander to send a v4 with the
> tags accumulated, assuming James's Tested-by is applicable to v3 with
> the boot/Makefile hunk removed. James?
I think it's safe to assume James's Tested-by is still valid, as
boot/Makefile hunk did virtually nothing.
I'll send the new patch version now.
> My ack stands.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark.
>
> [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2016-June/436551.html
> [2] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2016-June/436512.html



-- 
Alexander Potapenko
Software Engineer

Google Germany GmbH
Erika-Mann-Straße, 33
80636 München

Geschäftsführer: Matthew Scott Sucherman, Paul Terence Manicle
Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg