linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] objtool: Fix clang enum conversion warning

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.2.20.1712271313260.3177@hsp>
Date:   Wed, 27 Dec 2017 13:34:34 +0100 (CET)
From:   Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
To:     Nick Desaulniers <nick.desaulniers@...il.com>
cc:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] objtool: Fix clang enum conversion warning

On Tue, 26 Dec 2017, Nick Desaulniers wrote:

> I sent a similar one recently:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10131815/ (maybe Josh is just
> forwarding me an earlier fix?)
>
> Reviewed-by: Nick Desaulniers <nick.desaulniers@...il.com>
>

I actually submitted this (other) patch to LKML on 2017-12-10:

https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10103977/

I also pointed this out on the llvmlinux mailing list:

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/llvmlinux/2017-December/001535.html

(The mail might not have been distributed yet to its recipients, because I 
am on the llvmlinux mailing list only for a few days, and I might have not
been whitelisted for getting through the spam filtering of that list.)

Nick submitted another patch to LKML on 2017-12-24 (see above).

The source code change is the same; but the commit message was 
different. Now the third patch from Josh here is another equal patch with 
yet another commit message, combining information from both patches.

Assuming that the authorship of this one-line change does not matter, as 
it is largely suggested by the clang compiler anyway, and we want to move 
the change forward, we should decide on which of three patches to move
forward. I can give my Reviewed-by and Tested-by to any of them.

Lukas