linux-kernel - Re: git send-email friendly smtp provider anyone?

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: <182643db-e5f4-2277-a971-0f159849dadf@tronnes.org>
Date:   Tue, 22 Nov 2022 22:10:47 +0100
From:   Noralf Trønnes <noralf@...nnes.org>
To:     dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Cc:     Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Noralf Trønnes <noralf@...nnes.org>,
        Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: git send-email friendly smtp provider anyone?



Den 22.11.2022 20.22, skrev Noralf Trønnes:
> 
> 
> Den 22.11.2022 19.50, skrev Konstantin Ryabitsev:
>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 06:42:19PM +0100, Noralf Trønnes wrote:
>>> The first thing that strikes me is that everyone mentioned in one of the
>>> patches get the entire patchset, even stable@...r.kernel.org (cc'ed in a
>>> fixes patch). The first patch touches a core file and as a result a few
>>> drivers, so I've cc'ed the driver maintainers in that patch, but now
>>> they get the entire patchset where 5 of 6 patches is about a driver that
>>> I maintain. So from their point of view, they see a patchset about a
>>> driver they don't care about and a patch touching a core file, but from
>>> the subject it's not apparent that it touches their driver. I'm afraid
>>> that this might result in none of them looking at that patch. In this
>>> particular case it's not that important, but in another case it might be.
>>
>> I did some (unscientific) polling among kernel maintainers and, by a vast
>> margin, they always prefer to receive the entire series instead of
>> cherry-picked patches -- having the entire series helps provide important
>> context for the change they are looking at.
>>
>> So, this is deliberate and, for now at least, not configurable. Unless you're
>> sending 100+ patch series, I doubt anyone will have any problem with receiving
>> the whole series instead of individual patches.
>>
>>> As for the setting up the web endpoint, should I just follow the b4 docs
>>> on that?
>>>
>>> I use b4 version 0.10.1, is that recent enough?
>>
>> Yes. There will be a 0.10.2 in the near future, but the incoming fixes
>> shouldn't make much difference for the b4 send code.
>>
> 
> This is what I got:
> 
> $ b4 send --web-auth-verify <challenge string from email>
> Signing challenge
> Submitting verification to https://lkml.kernel.org/_b4_submit
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>   File "/home/pi/.local/bin/b4", line 8, in <module>
>     sys.exit(cmd())
>   File "/home/pi/.local/lib/python3.10/site-packages/b4/command.py",
> line 341, in cmd
>     cmdargs.func(cmdargs)
>   File "/home/pi/.local/lib/python3.10/site-packages/b4/command.py",
> line 86, in cmd_send
>     b4.ez.cmd_send(cmdargs)
>   File "/home/pi/.local/lib/python3.10/site-packages/b4/ez.py", line
> 1102, in cmd_send
>     auth_verify(cmdargs)
>   File "/home/pi/.local/lib/python3.10/site-packages/b4/ez.py", line
> 188, in auth_verify
>     res = ses.post(endpoint, json=req)
>   File "/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/requests/sessions.py", line 590,
> in post
>     return self.request('POST', url, data=data, json=json, **kwargs)
>   File "/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/requests/sessions.py", line 528,
> in request
>     prep = self.prepare_request(req)
>   File "/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/requests/sessions.py", line 456,
> in prepare_request
>     p.prepare(
>   File "/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/requests/models.py", line 319, in
> prepare
>     self.prepare_body(data, files, json)
>   File "/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/requests/models.py", line 469, in
> prepare_body
>     body = complexjson.dumps(json)
>   File "/usr/lib/python3.10/json/__init__.py", line 231, in dumps
>     return _default_encoder.encode(obj)
>   File "/usr/lib/python3.10/json/encoder.py", line 199, in encode
>     chunks = self.iterencode(o, _one_shot=True)
>   File "/usr/lib/python3.10/json/encoder.py", line 257, in iterencode
>     return _iterencode(o, 0)
>   File "/usr/lib/python3.10/json/encoder.py", line 179, in default
>     raise TypeError(f'Object of type {o.__class__.__name__} '
> TypeError: Object of type bytes is not JSON serializable
> 

Konstantin found a workaround, so I was able to push the patches.

Here's the result if anyone is interested in seeing the result of using
b4 and the web endpoint:
https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/20221122-gud-shadow-plane-v1-0-9de3afa3383e@tronnes.org/

Patchwork gave me a new submitter ID:
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/111222/

Noralf.