linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] Documentation: process: Correct numbering

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 21 Dec 2020 09:52:09 -0700
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To:     Milan Lakhani <milan.lakhani@...ethink.co.uk>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-safety@...ts.elisa.tech,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, lukas.bulwahn@...il.com,
        sudip.mukherjee@...ethink.co.uk, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Documentation: process: Correct numbering

On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 20:42:36 +0000
Milan Lakhani <milan.lakhani@...ethink.co.uk> wrote:

> Renumber the steps in submit-checklist.rst as some numbers were skipped.
> 
> Fixes: 72deb455b5ec ("block: remove CONFIG_LBDAF")
> Signed-off-by: Milan Lakhani <milan.lakhani@...ethink.co.uk>
> ---
>  Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst | 24 ++++++++++++------------
>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst b/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst
> index 1879f88..230ee42 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst
> @@ -75,44 +75,44 @@ and elsewhere regarding submitting Linux kernel patches.
>  13) Has been build- and runtime tested with and without ``CONFIG_SMP`` and
>      ``CONFIG_PREEMPT.``
>  
> -16) All codepaths have been exercised with all lockdep features enabled.
> +14) All codepaths have been exercised with all lockdep features enabled.
>  
> -17) All new ``/proc`` entries are documented under ``Documentation/``
> +15) All new ``/proc`` entries are documented under ``Documentation/``
[...]

I've applied this, but, if you're going to stick a "Fixes" tag onto a
patch, it's probably only polite to copy the original author.  I'm not
fully convinced that the tag is warranted in this case.

This document seems out of date in a number of ways; it could really use a
rather more thorough updating than this.

Thanks,

jon