linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/20] drop useless LIST

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:   Sat, 29 Dec 2018 07:19:35 +0100 (CET)
From:   Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To:     "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
cc:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Tom Psyborg <pozega.tomislav@...il.com>,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
        Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
        xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/20] drop useless LIST_HEAD



On Fri, 28 Dec 2018, Darrick J. Wong wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 04:40:55PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 11:12:20PM +0100, Tom Psyborg wrote:
> > > there was discussion about this just some days ago. CC 4-5 lists is
> > > more than enough
> > >
> >
> > I don't know who you were discussing this with...
> >
> > You should CC the 0th patch to all the mailinglists.  That much is a
> > clear rule.
> >
> > For the rest, Julia's position is the more conservative one.  I was in
> > a conversation in RL and they were like, "CC everyone for all the
> > patches".  It depends on the context, of course.  If the patches are
> > dependent on each other then you *have* to CC everyone for everything.
>
> Agreed.  Ms. Lawall, sending "Cover letter + all relevant XFS patches"
> (as you did) was exactly the right thing for us xfs types. :)
>
> For that matter, we prefer to receive through linux-xfs more patches
> than necessary (one can send the entire series if one is unsure) than to
> go wanting for more context.

Thanks for the confirmation.  I was planning to ignore the 4-5 advice,
because there is no way in this case to make a meaningful 4-5 list
suggestion - it's either all or nothing.  But 20 patches at once is
perhaps a lot as well.  In this case, I just wanted to get rid of the
whole issue at once.

julia