linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH v3 01/10] fs: common implementation of file 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]

Message-ID: <CAOQ4uxjQwE2nhS7KccL_P+jUnz4vGwTpxjQquvbaZ0zZpJqGtA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Oct 2018 12:20:14 +0300
From:   Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
To:     Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>
Cc:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v3 01/10] fs: common implementation of file type

On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 11:21 AM Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 09:16:20AM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 11:19 PM Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > Many file systems use a copy&paste implementation
> > > of dirent to on-disk file type conversions.
> > >
> > > Create a common implementation to be used by file systems
> > > with some useful conversion helpers to reduce open coded
> > > file type conversions in file system code.
> > >
> > > Original patch written by Amir Goldstein.
> >
> > Looks good.
> > I guess you used 'git apply' or just 'patch'
> > What you usually do when applying someone else mostly unchanged
> > patches is use 'git am -s -3' so you preserve the original author and
> > original commit message including the Signed-of-by line.
> > You can edit your patch by hand to change the From: line to change the
> > author and add
> > Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
> > (you sign below me as you changed the patch last)
> >
>
> Dear Amir,
>
> Yes, I applied each patch manually to my tree, fixed it up where needed,
> then after rebuilding and testing each one I committed it and regenerated
> each patch. Thank you very much for your advice, I will take it into
> account and make the necessary changes. In the meantime, do I add other
> tags in the order they are received also (such as Reviewed-by:) and am
> I safe to add these in when I re-send the patches with the changes you
> and others have suggested (or would that offend people that have
> offered the tags)?
>

Reviewed-by before of after Signed-off-by.
I prefer Signed-off-by last which conceptually covers the entire patch,
the commit message including all the review tags that you may have added.

Some developers add Reviewed-by after Signed-off-by signifying the
order that things happened, so choose your own preference.

As a reviewer, and I speak only for myself, if I offered my Reviewed-by
I expect it to be removed if a future revision of the patch has changed
so I have an indication of patches that I need to re-review.
But if the patch changed very lightly, like small edits to commit message
and code nits in general, that would not invalidate my review.
When in doubt, you can always explicitly ask the reviewer.

Thanks,
Amir.