linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 3/8] kbuild: generate an address ranges map at vmlinux link time

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

Message-ID: <871qq2vq8h.fsf@esperi.org.uk>
Date:   Wed, 16 Nov 2022 16:06:06 +0000
From:   Nick Alcock <nick.alcock@...cle.com>
To:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc:     masahiroy@...nel.org, linux-modules@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arnd@...db.de,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, eugene.loh@...cle.com,
        kris.van.hees@...cle.com, thunder.leizhen@...wei.com,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 3/8] kbuild: generate an address ranges map at
 vmlinux link time

On 15 Nov 2022, Luis Chamberlain verbalised:

> On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 04:48:57PM +0000, Nick Alcock wrote:
>> [Added Steve Rostedt to Cc:]
>> 
>> On 13 Nov 2022, Luis Chamberlain stated:
>> > This does't say why we'd want this. So either you merge it with its
>> > first user or you explain here why anyone might find this useful.
>> 
>> Uh... the first user is later in this patch series? If you want each
>> commit to have a self-contained explanation, I could certainly note why
>> it's useful for said first user in this commit message (and adjust other
>> messages similarly), but I had previous complaints that commit log
>> messages and the cover letter were repeating points, so I was trying to
>> reduce that kind of thing.
>
> Commit logs should be self contained. The reason for *why* we want to
> add ranges should go here, not the cover letter. You can be terse in the
> cover letter over the general solution.

Ah, OK, my apologies: I was writing things precisely backwards then
(rationale in the cover letter, self-contained-but-no-rationale in the
individual patches then tying it together in the user at the end).
Whoops!

I'll rephrase as you suggest in the next round.

(And I'll definitely rephrase the cover letter again -- I tried to add a
decent rationale in there but from the sounds of things comprehensively
failed this time. Sorry!)

-- 
NULL && (void)