linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH linux-next] memory:tegra210-emc-core: replace DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE with DEFINE_DEBUGFS

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: <b6d32023-e3ac-3ccc-e683-076768124bde@canonical.com>
Date:   Wed, 25 Aug 2021 12:23:59 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:     CGEL <cgel.zte@...il.com>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
        Jing Yangyang <jing.yangyang@....com.cn>,
        Zeal Robot <zealci@....com.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-next] memory:tegra210-emc-core: replace
 DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE with DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE

On 25/08/2021 12:01, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 11:45:58AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 25/08/2021 08:37, CGEL wrote:
>>> From: Jing Yangyang <jing.yangyang@....com.cn>
>>>
>>> Fix the following coccicheck warning:
>>> ./drivers/memory/tegra/tegra210-emc-core.c:1665:0-23:WARNING
>>> tegra210_emc_debug_min_rate_fops should be defined
>>>  with DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE
>>> ./drivers/memory/tegra/tegra210-emc-core.c:1726:0-23:WARNING
>>> tegra210_emc_debug_temperature_fops should be defined
>>>  with DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE
>>
>> Thanks for the patch.
>>
>> One error message is enough. They are the same.
>>
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Zeal Robot <zealci@....com.cn>
>>
>> Where is the report? We work here in a public, so if there is a report I
>> assume we can reach it? In case the report does not exist, anyone can
>> run checkpatch, coccinelle, smatch and sparse, so how does this differs
>> from me running checkpatch?
> 
> Someone asked for these tags when it was Huawei sending patches from
> the Hulk Robot so no everyone adds them and Hulk Robot is the #1 bug
> reporter.  Hulk Robot just crossed the 2000 tag mark recently.

Yes, I know, my questions where rather rhetorical. :) Hulk Robot reports
are ridiculous, in my opinion.

The tool (checkpatch) used to detect warning is public, so from
community perspective this does not differ from John Smith sending a fix
for a checkpatch issue.
However I do not expect tags like:
  From: John Smith
  ...
  Reported-by: John Smith
  Signed-off-by: John Smith

How does it look? Neither I expect some unknown, hidden, secret reports
like:
  Reported-by: foo bar
  Signed-off-by: John Smith

Simply the credit of running the tool (e.g. checkpatch) is already in
the patch authorship. The Reported-by is for crediting additional work
related to the report.

No report, no credit. Otherwise the value of Reported-by cease to exist...

Best regards,
Krzysztof