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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 10 Aug 2019 13:33:12 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Makefile: Convert -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3 to just
 -Wimplicit-fallthrough for clang

On Sat, 2019-08-10 at 13:18 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sat, 2019-08-10 at 12:44 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > 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".
> []
> > 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.
> 
> Thanks. It's simple enough.
> 
> There are classes of patches generated by scripts that have
> no real mechanism to be applied today.
> 
> For instance: global coccinelle scripted changes to use stracpy
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/alpine.DEB.2.21.1907251747560.2494@hadrien/
> 
> and trivial scripted changes to MAINTAINERS
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6482e6546dc328ec47b07dba9a78a9573ebb3e56.camel@perches.com/
> 
> that are basically impossible to be applied by anyone but you.
> 
> Otherwise there are hundreds of little micro patches most of
> which would not otherwise be applied.
> 
> There should be some process available to get these treewide
> or difficult to keep up-to-date and apply patches handled.
> 
> I believe these sorts of scripted patches should ideally
> be handled immediately before an RC1 so other trees can be 
> synchronized in the simplest way possible.

Hey Stephen

Question for you about a possible -next process change.

Would it be reasonable to have some mechanism to script
treewide patches to generate and apply after Andrew Morton's
mmotm patches are applied to -next?

This could allow treewide scripted patches to have
compilation and test coverage before possibly being
applied to Linus' tree.

What would be necessary to allow this?