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: <20171227173819.67iidrynd7jmmbmy@treble>
Date:   Wed, 27 Dec 2017 11:38:19 -0600
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
Cc:     Nick Desaulniers <nick.desaulniers@...il.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] objtool: Fix clang enum conversion warning

On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 01:34:34PM +0100, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
> 
> 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.

The patch from Lukas was the first one I received, so that's the one I
used.  I rewrote the commit msg for clarity and added my SOB and sent it
to Ingo for merging.

-- 
Josh