linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv3 00/18] atomics: API cleanups

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: <20180619102049.GF13984@arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Jun 2018 11:20:49 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:     peterz@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        boqun.feng@...il.com, mingo@...nel.org, albert@...ive.com,
        arnd@...db.de, benh@...nel.crashing.org, geert@...ux-m68k.org,
        ink@...assic.park.msu.ru, linux@...linux.org.uk,
        mattst88@...il.com, mpe@...erman.id.au, palmer@...ive.com,
        paulus@...ba.org, rth@...ddle.net, vgupta@...opsys.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 00/18] atomics: API cleanups

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 11:18:01AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 08:21:27PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 05:38:06PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:19:01AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > This series contains a few cleanups of the atomic API, fixing
> > > > inconsistencies between atomic_* and atomic64_*, and minimizing
> > > > repetition in arch code. This is nicer for arch code, and the improved
> > > > regularity will help when generating the atomic headers in future.
> > > 
> > > Apart from the Alpha patch:
> > > 
> > > Reviewed-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
> > 
> > Cheers! I assume that also holds with patch 7 fixes up to use s64.
> 
> I've pushed out the series with those fixes and your Reviewed-by tags.
> 
> Given the whole series has your Reviewed-By and Peter's Acked-by, I
> assume that you're both happy for this to be queued?
> 
> What's your prefered way for that to happen? Should I send a v4 with
> those fixes, a pull request, or are you happy to fetch that in a little
> while regardless?

Probably best to send a v4, then Ingo can take it all via -tip. Before you
do that, can you also spell-check your commit messages please? I spotted a
bunch of silly typos, and it will save Ingo from having to fix them up if
you do it first.

Will