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: <5762D591.5090702@arm.com>
Date:	Thu, 16 Jun 2016 17:36:33 +0100
From:	James Morse <james.morse@....com>
To:	Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
CC:	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....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 16/06/16 17:36, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
> 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:
>>> 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.

Ah, that's what happened...


> 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 agree!

> I'll send the new patch version now.


Thanks,

James