linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][RFC] lockdep: improve comments in wait-type checks

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]

Date:   Tue, 24 Aug 2021 15:47:21 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc:     Zhouyi Zhou <zhouzhouyi@...il.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
        will@...nel.org, longman@...hat.com, paulmck@...nel.org,
        josh@...htriplett.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
        joel@...lfernandes.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        rcu@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] lockdep: improve comments in wait-type checks

On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 10:44:21AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 05:03:19AM +0800, Zhouyi Zhou wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> >   I think comments in wait-type checks may benifit from some comments
> > improvement.
> 
> Thanks for looking into this!
> 
> Even for an RFC patch, it's better that you write a proper commit log,
> and note that you can put all this background information right after
> the "---" line, if you think that will help people review it.
> 
> >   I recklessly add Paul to signed-off-by, because I asked his opinion
> > about comment in rcu_read_lock_bh part.
> > 
> 
> Probably a Suggested-by will suffice, but I leave that to Paul ;-)

This, also since Paul never actually touched the patch.

> > Thanks a lot
> > Zhouyi
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Zhouyi Zhou <zhouzhouyi@...il.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
> 
> Please make you the last one in the "Signed-off-by" list, see
> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:
> 
> "Notably, the last Signed-off-by: must always be that of the developer
> submitting the patch."

The first sob should be that of the author, and given that's the same
person as the submitter in this case, he's got a problem at his hands
;-)