linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/12] blk: use for_each

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]

Date:   Wed, 11 Jul 2018 15:13:00 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        DRI Development <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>,
        Shaohua Li <shli@...com>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Joseph Qi <joseph.qi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/12] blk: use for_each_if

On 7/11/18 3:08 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 10:06 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 01:31:51PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> I don't think there's a git easy way of sending it out outside of
>>> just ensuring that everybody is CC'ed on everything. I don't mind
>>> that at all. I don't subscribe to lkml, and the patches weren't
>>> sent to linux-block. Hence all I see is this stand-alone patch,
>>> and logic would dictate that it's stand-alone (but it isn't).
> 
> Hm yeah I forgot to add linux-block. But others where there's no
> dedicated list (or get_maintainers.pl didn't have one) also complained
> about not getting Cc'ed, and I can't Cc everyone for sweeping changes.

I don't personally see a problem with just CC'ing everyone.

>> What I sometimes do is including a short blurb on each patch giving
>> the overview and action hints (e.g. this is part of patchset doing XYZ
>> and should be routed such and such).  It's a bit redundant but has
>> worked pretty well for patchsets with dependenat & sweeping changes.
> 
> Yeah I guess I can just copypaste/summarize patch 1 to all the
> subsequent patches, sounds like the best option.

Another approach might be to submit the first independent patch
separately. Once that's in the kernel, you can send out the rest
as independent patches instead of doing a cross-kernel series that
all depend on one single patch. Seems to me that's where you run
into issues, and it can be avoided quite easily.

-- 
Jens Axboe