linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v4] checkpatch: Check for .byte-spelled insn opcodes documentation on x86

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]

Message-ID: <03d26751ba302dfafeaf11718a26771c2f915ba3.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Oct 2020 11:03:36 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v4] checkpatch: Check for .byte-spelled insn opcodes
 documentation on x86

On Mon, 2020-10-12 at 19:55 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 10:40:07AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > Why?  I think it unnecessary.
> 
> Joe, I'm sick'n'tired of debating with you what needs to happen.
> 
> Please forget that patch altogether

Fine by me.

>  - I'll add the functionality to our
> own checker script where I don't need to debate with you what I have to
> and I have not to do.
> 
> And I won't be getting private emails about you teaching me how I should
> have replied to your mail. The only "mistake" I made is even thinking
> about adding this to checkpatch. Won't happen again.

For the record:

My single-line private email to you was not "teaching",
it was just a statement of what I would have preferred.

Just remain the "best you" you want to be...

---

On Mon, 2020-10-12 at 10:41 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-10-12 at 19:31 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 10:17:56AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > Workie here.  This is against -next.
> > Nevermind - I had an old version in that branch.
> btw: adding "my mistake" would have been more appreciated...