linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] mtd: rawnand: Add support manufacturer specific lock/unlock operation

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:   Wed, 11 Mar 2020 08:25:22 +0100
From:   Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
To:     masonccyang@...c.com.tw
Cc:     "Boris Brezillon" <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>,
        allison@...utok.net, bbrezillon@...nel.org,
        frieder.schrempf@...tron.de, juliensu@...c.com.tw,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
        rfontana@...hat.com, richard@....at, s.hauer@...gutronix.de,
        stefan@...er.ch, tglx@...utronix.de, vigneshr@...com,
        yuehaibing@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] mtd: rawnand: Add support manufacturer specific
 lock/unlock operation

Hi Mason, Boris,

masonccyang@...c.com.tw wrote on Wed, 11 Mar 2020 10:40:04 +0800:

> Hi Boris,
> 
> > > Add nand_lock() & nand_unlock() for manufacturer specific lock &   
> unlock
> > > operation while the device supports Block Portection function.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Mason Yang <masonccyang@...c.com.tw>
> > > Reported-by: kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com>  
> > 
> > Reported-by on something that's not a fix doesn't make sense. I know
> > the 0day bot asked you to add this tag, but that should only be done if
> > you submit a separate patch, ideally with a Fixes tag. If the offending
> > patch has not been merged yet, you should just fix the commit and ignore
> > the Reported-by tag (you can mention who reported the problem in the
> > changelog though).

Yesterday when applying all the NAND patches my personal IP address got
flagged as spam by mistake (~500 mails in ~10s) so I could not answer
manually as I wished.

Indeed, this Reported-by tag was not needed and I dropped it manually
when applying. This tag is meant to show an error that was existing
*before* your series and that you are fixing with your series. This is
not something you should add when a robot tells you something is wrong
in your series.

Also, I rewrote several paragraphs and I prefixed two of them with "mtd:
rawnand: macronix:".

Thanks,
Miquèl