linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v4 1/3] selftests/x86/sgx: Fix Makefile for SGX selftest

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:   Sun, 14 Jul 2019 17:53:50 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     "Xing, Cedric" <cedric.xing@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dave.hansen@...el.com,
        sean.j.christopherson@...el.com, serge.ayoun@...el.com,
        shay.katz-zamir@...el.com, haitao.huang@...el.com,
        kai.svahn@...el.com, kai.huang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 1/3] selftests/x86/sgx: Fix Makefile for SGX
 selftest

On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 10:29:12AM -0700, Xing, Cedric wrote:
> Please note that your patchset hasn't been upstreamed yet. Your Makefile is
> problematic to begin with. Technically it's your job to make it work before
> sending out any patches. You didn't explain what's done for each line of
> Makefile in your commit message either.

Yes, it is different case to do the initial version of the whole thing
that suggest fixes to it. The latter needs to have more granularity.
Bug fixes in any type of software development should be isolated to
separate change sets. It is just a sane QA practice.

> Not saying documentation is unimportant, but the purposes for those changes
> are obvious and easy to understand for anyone having reasonable knowledge on
> how Makefile works.
>
> I'm totally fine not fixing the Makefile. You can just leave them out.

/Jarkko