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: <20181024095601.GA19974@pathfinder>
Date:   Wed, 24 Oct 2018 10:56:01 +0100
From:   Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>
To:     Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
Cc:     viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v3 01/10] fs: common implementation of file type

On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 12:44:50PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 12:31 PM Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 12:20:14PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 11:21 AM Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > 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.
> >
> > Dear Amir,
> >
> > Thanks - I am just going to fix up the commit messages as you suggested
> > using git am etc. The content of the patches themselves will not change
> > (until further feedback is received).
> >
> 
> Well, I did request to change some content (the location and the comment
> above BUILD_BUG_ON section) which is relevant for several patches.
> However, so far affected patched did not get any Reviewed-by.
> 
> Thanks,
> Amir.

Sorry, I missed that bit at the end, was too keen to click through to the
note about the alleged ext2 bug :-) I will make sure those changes are made
as well. By location do you mean the location of the v3, v2, etc. stuff and
your point about including it in the main [0/10] message rather than the
patches themselves? Again, thank you for your feedback and for being patient
with me, I really do appreciate it.

Regards,
Phil