linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Makefile: Convert -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3 to just -Wimplicit-fallthrough for clang

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: <CAHk-=wiL7jqYNfYrNikgBw3byY+Zn37-8D8yR=WUu0x=_2BpZA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 10 Aug 2019 12:44:21 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Makefile: Convert -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3 to just
 -Wimplicit-fallthrough for clang

On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 12:32 PM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
>
> What does it take for this sort of patch to be applied by you?

The basic rule tends to be: "normal channels".

For example, in the case of most of your patches, that tends to be
through Andrew, since most of them tend to be about the scripts.

In this case, I would have expected the patch to come in the same way
that the original Makefile change came in and follow-up fallthrough
fixups have come, ie though Gustavo's tree.

I certainly do take patches directly too, but tend to do so only if I
feel there's some problem with the process.

I pulled from Gustavo earlier today to add a few more expected switch
fall-through's, I guess I can take this Makefile change directly.

               Linus