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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 19:48:06 +0200 From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net> To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org Cc: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>, Alexander Steffen <Alexander.Steffen@...ineon.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>, Corentin Labbe <clabbe.montjoie@...il.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>, Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@...hat.com>, Kenneth Goldman <kgold@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, Peter Hüwe <PeterHuewe@....de>, Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Subject: Re: char/tpm: Improve a size determination in nine functions > For 1/4 and 2/4: explain why the message can be omitted. Why did you not reply directly with this request for the update steps with the subject “Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation in tpm_…()”? https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10009405/ https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10009415/ I find that there can be difficulty to show an appropriate information source for the reasonable explanation of this change pattern. > Remove sentence about Coccinelle. I got the impression that there is a bit of value in such a kind of attribution. > That's all. I assume that there might be also some communication challenges involved. > 3/4: definitive NAK, too much noise compared to value. I tried to reduce deviations from the Linux coding style again. You do not like such an attempt for this software area so far. > 4/4: this a good commit message. Why did you not reply directly with this feedback for the update step “[PATCH 4/4] char/tpm: Less checks in tpm_ibmvtpm_probe() after error detection”? https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10009429/ https://lkml.kernel.org/r/<09a2c3a1-1b10-507d-a866-258b570f6da1@...rs.sourceforge.net> > Requires a Tested-by before can be accepted, which I'm not able to give. I am curious on how this detail will evolve. Regards, Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists