linux-kernel - Re: checkpatch changes for 4.16

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180201001021.GB29988@eros>
Date:   Thu, 1 Feb 2018 11:10:21 +1100
From:   "Tobin C. Harding" <me@...in.cc>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: checkpatch changes for 4.16

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 03:56:19PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 10:23 +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 02:48:56PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 08:46 +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> > > > Hi Joe,
> > > > 
> > > > Can I please bother you with a maintainer question.  I know everyone is
> > > > super busy right now, I'm asking for a smidgen of your time instead of
> > > > doing it wrong and taking up some of Linus' time since it's merge window
> > > > and all that.
> > > > 
> > > > I have the checkpatch set queued ready to do a GIT PULL to Linus.  My
> > > > concern is that the subject line may not be unique if checkpatch changes
> > > > are coming in from various trees this merge window. I have tagged the
> > > > pull request with
> > > 
> > > Personally, I think you could let Andrew Morton pick them
> > > up as very few patches for checkpatch go in any other way.
> > 
> > ok no worries.  I'll leave it until a few rc's are out then send to Andrew.
> > 
> > > What patches are you submitting again?
> > > 
> > > Is it just
> > > 
> > > commit 7b1924a1d930 ("vsprintf: add printk specifier %px")
> > > 
> > > or is there something else?
> > 
> > d94e97bc9ede checkpatch: add sub routine get_stat_real()
> > d0e27c47f5b9 checkpatch: add sub routine get_stat_here()
> > 986b3b5b7d7a checkpatch: warn for use of %px
> > 26c1cf882d79 checkpatch: add check for tag Co-Developed-by
> > 
> > I thought it was odd when you said they could go in through _any_
> > tree. Not to worry, it's not urgent. 
> 
> Stuff that is going to be pulled should at least
> marinate in -next for awhile first and not first
> be presented as a pull request.

Oh cheers, I forgot about that for leaking_addresses patches too :(

thanks,
Tobin.