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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <7f30c726-6351-6c70-bc8c-6a0aaad4d0a4@kernel.dk>
Date:   Fri, 19 Mar 2021 07:02:48 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
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 3/19/21 3:47 AM, 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?

I don't reported-by for this use either, as that is a lot more
appropriate for a single fix that fixes an issue that was reported by
(duh) that specific person.

Fixes-from seems a lot better.

-- 
Jens Axboe