linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] KVM: Replace bare 'unsigned' with 'unsigned int'

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <133c543af026f99f0cd148d4403cf426e8470666.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Sat, 05 Mar 2022 17:53:24 -0800
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Henry Sloan <henryksloan@...il.com>
Cc:     pbonzini@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] KVM: Replace bare 'unsigned' with 'unsigned int'

On Sat, 2022-03-05 at 20:44 -0500, Henry Sloan wrote:
> I agree the bool conversion should be a separate patch. Would it be proper
> to resubmit the whole patchset with a new, seventh patch containing the
> bool conversion? If I was to do so, should all of those patches be labelled
> v2, but without any changelogs since none of the present patches will have
> been changed?

Generally yes, but it depends on the upstream maintainer's preference.

Ideally:

o a 0/n patch cover letter could be used to describe the change/addition
o each proposed patch has a patch description above your Signed-off-by: