linux-kernel - Re: Clarification for general change acceptance

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: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1705121635000.2981@hadrien>
Date:   Fri, 12 May 2017 16:37:23 +0800 (SGT)
From:   Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To:     SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
cc:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, devel@...uxdriverproject.org
Subject: Re: Clarification for general change acceptance

> But I will come along source code places where I am going to update details
> which are also trivial.

When you make a patch, you are not obliged to eliminate all of the other
checkpatch warnings on the file.  I don't know where you got this idea
from.  The submitting patch guidelines don't say to do it, and no one else
does it.  You just need to ensure that your changes don't introduce new
warnings, unless there is a good reason to do so.

julia