linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next] writeback: fix -Wformat compilation warnings

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:   Mon, 25 Nov 2019 07:51:46 -0800
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     Qian Cai <cai@....pw>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        jack@...e.cz, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, gor@...ux.ibm.com,
        borntraeger@...ibm.com, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] writeback: fix -Wformat compilation warnings

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 04:17:51PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 11/20/19 12:56 PM, Qian Cai wrote:
> > On Fri, 2019-11-15 at 06:55 -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 07:26:21PM -0500, Qian Cai wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On Nov 14, 2019, at 2:21 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
> >>>
> >>> Tejun, suppose you will take this patch via your tree together with the series or should I Cc Andrew who normally handle this file?
> >>
> >> Patches in this area usually goes through Jens's block tree.
> > 
> > I remember that last time Jens had no interests in picking up trivial patches
> > like this one. See the commit d1a445d3b86c ("include/trace/events/writeback.h:
> > fix -Wstringop-truncation warnings").
> > 
> > Andrew, care to pick up this again?
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1573751861-10303-1-git-send-email-cai@lca.pw/
> 
> I'm fine with picking it up, this one isn't trivial and it's fixing
> warnings. But I didn't (and don't) carry f05499a06fb4 in my tree,
> so it'd be more logical to funnel this one through the tree that
> has the offending commit.

Yeah, I was being dumb.  This was from the commit which got applied to
cgroup tree as part of the cgroup id unification.  Applied to
cgroup/for-5.5.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun