linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 2/2] docs: bpf: Clarify -mcpu=v3 requirement for atomic ops

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]

Message-ID: <CAADnVQLGnsc0r0ZXbZys7N5cpxiRSP8BfUOr9PO5vYwQPMzWpA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Jan 2021 17:07:44 -0800
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
Cc:     Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
        Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 2/2] docs: bpf: Clarify -mcpu=v3 requirement
 for atomic ops

On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 11:57 AM Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 2:39 PM Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > Alexei pointed out [1] that this wording is pretty confusing. Here's
> > an attempt to be more explicit and clear.
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAADnVQJVvwoZsE1K+6qRxzF7+6CvZNzygnoBW9tZNWJELk5c=Q@mail.gmail.com/T/#m07264fc18fdc43af02fc1320968afefcc73d96f4
> >
>
> It is common practice to use "Link: URL" to refer to other mail
> threads; and to use the "permalink":
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAADnVQJVvwoZsE1K+6qRxzF7+6CvZNzygnoBW9tZNWJELk5c=Q@mail.gmail.com/
>
> which is a bit shorter than the link you provided.

I fixed it up while applying.
Thanks everyone.