[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <615f79c5-5ca8-9dad-9ef7-85d8513a3e1b@web.de>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 08:50:59 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Bo YU <tsu.yubo@...il.com>, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arch/x86: Check return value from a notify_die() call
>>> This is detected by Coverity scan: #CID: 1464472(CHECKED_RETURN)
Can an additional imperative wording be helpful for the change description
(besides an adjusted patch subject)?
>>> FIXES: c94082656dac7(x86: Use enum instead of literals for trap values)
>>
>> Is the following tag specification more appropriate?
>>
>> Fixes: c94082656dac7 ("x86: Use enum instead of literals for trap values")
> Your description looks like more appropriate, thank you.
Thanks for your positive feedback.
> But I want to receive suggestions from other reviewers also. So I will
> send V2 patch as your point once got confirmed. Sorry.
Should the confirmation be sufficient from the available software documentation?
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?id=625d3449788f85569096780592549d0340e9c0c7#n183
I am curious if this patch review will clarify more aspects.
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists