linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] staging: erofs: use explicit unsigned int type

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, 12 Sep 2018 14:21:51 +0800
From:   Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@...wei.com>
To:     Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
CC:     Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        <linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org>, <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] staging: erofs: use explicit unsigned int type

Hi Thomas,

On 2018/9/11 3:41, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> Hi Chao,
> 
> On Mon, 2018-09-10T23:59+0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> I was not aware of this tree and worked off of staging / next.
>>>> A patch is attached to this message that adds the tree to the MAINTAINERS file.
>>> Hi Chao,
>>>
>>> I think this tree has some PREVIEW patches which preview in linux-erofs mailing list only and
>>> doesn't send to staging mailing list and LKML,
>>>
>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/chao/linux.git/log/?h=erofs
>>>
>>> so erofs tree is actually Greg's staging tree.
>> Thomas,
>>
>> I confirmed that erofs git repository for linux upstream is Greg's staging tree.
>>
>> Let me explain, in order to avoid sending buggy or preview patch, Xiang and me
>> plan to review patches in erofs mailing list first, and then cache reviewed
>> patches in my git tree before sending them to Greg and staging mailing list.
>>
>> Based on that, I'm trying to serialize all erofs patches, expecting that can
>> help those patches sent to staging mailing list can be merged by Greg with
>> lesser conflict. But I made a mistake that my erofs branch has merged some
>> pending patches, result in failing to merge yours, that mislead me to ask you to
>> rebase the code, sorry about that.
> Thank you for clearing this up! And I am sorry for causing you all this work
> for what is essentially a very small style cleanup.
> 
>> Now I can confirm that your v2 patch can apply on Greg's staging-next, so fixing
>> warning reported by checkpatch.pl on your v2 patch is enough. :)
> The patch follows.
> 
> Thomas

Could you please resend your patch seperately? Because it will be easier for Greg to merge.

> 
> 
> Changes since v1:
> 
> * Removed changes that conflicted with
>   [PATCH 1/6] staging: erofs: formatting fix in unzip_vle_lz4.c
> * Added patch description
> 
> Changes since v2:
> 
> * Fixed conflicts with other patchsets
> * Don't introduce new style issues
> 
> Changes since v3:
> 
> * Fixed conflicts with other patchsets
> 
> Note: This patchset should be applied with the "git am --scissors", to
> remove the historic information and this note.
> 
> -- >8 --

I personally think that is not the correct kernel patch style.

Just as Greg's said,
> These changes belong below the --- line, not above it.

LINK: https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linux-erofs/2018-August/000367.html

For reference, it will help the patch quickly get merged. ;)

and you could add,
Reviewed-by: Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@...wei.com>

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

> 
> Fix coding style issue "Prefer 'unsigned int' to bare use of 'unsigned'"
> detected by checkpatch.pl.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>