linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][next] loop: Fix missing max_active argument in alloc

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <36888c20-48b7-373e-260a-6e8719c0ed60@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 19 Mar 2021 11:03:03 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
        Dan Schatzberg <schatzberg.dan@...il.com>,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] loop: Fix missing max_active argument in
 alloc_workqueue call

On 19/03/2021 10:47, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 02:42:33PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 3/18/21 2:24 PM, Colin Ian King wrote:
>>> On 18/03/2021 20:12, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> On 3/18/21 9:16 AM, Colin King wrote:
>>>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> The 3rd argument to alloc_workqueue should be the max_active count,
>>>>> however currently it is the lo->lo_number that is intended for the
>>>>> loop%d number. Fix this by adding in the missing max_active count.
>>>>
>>>> Dan, please fold this (or something similar) in when you're redoing the
>>>> series.
>>>>
>>> Appreciate this fix being picked up. Are we going to lose the SoB?
>>
>> If it's being redone, would be silly to have that error in there. Do
>> we have a tag that's appropriate for this? I often wonder when I'm
>> folding in a fix. Ala Fixes-by: or something like that.
> 
> I've always lobied for a Fixes-from: tag, but the kbuild-bot tells
> everyone to add a Reported-by: tag.  But then a lot of people are like
> Reported-by doesn't make sense.  And other people are like Reported-by
> is fine, what's wrong with it?

If the original commit is a fix and the fix for it is being squashed,
then Reported-by might mislead.

kbuild-bot tests also patches from list directly, so in such case the
patch can be re-done with a risk of loosing kbuild's credits. But when
the patch is already in the maintainer tree - just create a fixup. You
preserve the development history and the kbuild's credits.


Best regards,
Krzysztof