linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] gpio: gpio-mux-input: add generic gpio input multiplexer

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: <a8301a34-5ce6-6bce-63c9-3a4484a8b20d@ext.kapsi.fi>
Date:   Mon, 31 May 2021 13:19:51 +0300
From:   Mauri Sandberg <maukka@....kapsi.fi>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     sandberg@...lfence.com, bgolaszewski@...libre.com,
        geert+renesas@...der.be, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
        linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        drew@...gleboard.org, kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] gpio: gpio-mux-input: add generic gpio input
 multiplexer


On 30.5.2021 22.38, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sun, May 30, 2021 at 10:02 PM Mauri Sandberg <maukka@....kapsi.fi> wrote:
>> On 30.5.2021 21.09, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 30, 2021 at 7:16 PM Mauri Sandberg <maukka@....kapsi.fi> wrote:
>>>> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
>>> Is it a fix? Shall we add the Fixes tag?
>> In the v1 a build bot complained about .owner along these lines:
>>
>> --- snip ----
>> If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag as appropriate
>> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
>>
>>
>> cocci warnings: (new ones prefixed by >>)
>>   >> drivers/gpio/gpio-mux-input.c:138:3-8: No need to set .owner here.
>> The core will do it.
>>
>> Please review and possibly fold the followup patch.
>> --- snip ---
>>
>> I removed the .owner attribute in v2 as requested but wasn't really sure
>> whether it was "appropriate"
>> to add the tag so I put it there anyhow. Technically, this does not fix
>> any previous commit.
> For this kind of thing you may attribute the reporter(s) by mentioning
> them in the comment lines / cover letter.
It's there in the patch version notes so the 'Reported-by' was 
unnecessary. Should it be removed?
That is, is there a tool sitting somwhere that tries to match reports 
and their fixes?