linux-kernel - Re: Easy Kernel Patch

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 20 Dec 2018 07:03:17 -0700
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To:     Hunter Lannon <kindlehl@...osl.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Easy Kernel Patch

On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 22:47:18 -0800
Hunter Lannon <kindlehl@...osl.org> wrote:

> This is my first patch submitted. I hope I can finally say I have a
> commit in the Linux source code :)

I expect you'll get there, but this patch won't be the one that crosses
the bar for you.  Here's some suggestions for how to do it successfully
next time:

 - Read Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst all the way through.
   There's a lot of information there that would have helped you to avoid
   the errors made here.

 - Use scripts/get_maintainer.pl to be sure that you direct your patches
   to the correct maintainer(s) and lists.  A patch just sent to LKML is
   unlikely to come to the attention of the people who need to see it.

 - Please send patches inline rather than as attachments.

With regard to the patch itself:

> From 1ce6365d07c734cea9965d3135dd64e2641021ef Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: kindlehl <kindlehl@...osl.org>
> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 22:36:22 -0800
> Subject: [PATCH] Removed twin forward-declaration of struct device

Patches should always have an informative changelog saying *why* your
change improves the kernel.  Removing a redundant declaration certainly
does that, but you need to say so.

> Signed-off-by: kindlehl <kindlehl@...osl.org>

The signoff line needs your full and real name.

> ---
>  include/linux/pm.h | 2 --
>  1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/pm.h b/include/linux/pm.h
> index e723b78d8357..d33147db9400 100644
> --- a/include/linux/pm.h
> +++ b/include/linux/pm.h
> @@ -51,8 +51,6 @@ static inline void pm_vt_switch_unregister(struct device *dev)
>   * Device power management
>   */
>  
> -struct device;
> -
>  #ifdef CONFIG_PM
>  extern const char power_group_name[];		/* = "power" */
>  #else
> -- 
> 2.19.1

Fix those up and submit the patch properly, and I see no reason why it
would not be accepted.

Thanks for working to improve the kernel!

jon