linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/9] fs/ntfs3: Use new mount api and change some opts

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: <CAHp75VetzFedGyqaB5TmsBH5UjBYpR8rimGmt8scn5fZ4FRbqg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 8 Sep 2021 12:00:38 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Kari Argillander <kari.argillander@...il.com>
Cc:     Konstantin Komarov <almaz.alexandrovich@...agon-software.com>,
        "ntfs3@...ts.linux.dev" <ntfs3@...ts.linux.dev>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/9] fs/ntfs3: Use new mount api and change some opts

On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 11:47 PM Kari Argillander
<kari.argillander@...il.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 7, 2021, Andy Shevchenko
> (andy.shevchenko@...il.com) wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 7, 2021, Konstantin Komarov <almaz.alexandrovich@...agon-software.com> wrote:
> >> On 07.09.2021 10:36, Kari Argillander wrote:

...

> >> Yes, everything else seems good.
> >> We tested patches locally - no regression was
> >
> > The formal answer in such case should also contain the Tested-by tag. I would suggest you to read the Submitting Patches document (available in the Linux kernel source tree).
>
> He is a maintainer so he can add tags when he picks this up.

It's a good practice to do so. Moreover, it's better to do it
patch-by-patch, so tools like `b4` can cope with tags for *anybody*
who will use it in automated way.

> This is not
> really relevant here.

Why not?

> Yes it should be good to include that but I have already
> sended v4 which he has not tested. So I really cannot put this tag for him.
> So at the end he really should not even put it here.

For v4 I agree with you.

> Also usually the maintainers will always make their own tests and usually
> they will not even bother with a tested-by tag.

If it's their own code, yes, if it's others', why not? See above as well.

> Or do you say to me that I
> should go read Submitting Patches document as I'm the one who submit
> this?

It's always good to refresh memory, so why not? :-)

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko