linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 15/27] memory: tegra: remove MODULE

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: <87zg8n3s9m.fsf@esperi.org.uk>
Date:   Wed, 08 Mar 2023 20:25:09 +0000
From:   Nick Alcock <nick.alcock@...cle.com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc:     mcgrof@...nel.org, linux-modules@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Hitomi Hasegawa <hasegawa-hitomi@...itsu.com>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/27] memory: tegra: remove MODULE_LICENSE in non-modules

On 6 Mar 2023, Krzysztof Kozlowski stated:

> On 06/03/2023 18:13, Nick Alcock wrote:
>> On 6 Mar 2023, Krzysztof Kozlowski told this:
>> 
>>> On 06/03/2023 15:30, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 24/02/2023 16:07, Nick Alcock wrote:
>>>>> Since commit 8b41fc4454e ("kbuild: create modules.builtin without
>>>>> Makefile.modbuiltin or tristate.conf"), MODULE_LICENSE declarations
>>>>> are used to identify modules. As a consequence, uses of the macro
>>>>> in non-modules will cause modprobe to misidentify their containing
>>>>> object file as a module when it is not (false positives), and modprobe
>>>>> might succeed rather than failing with a suitable error message.
>>>>>
>>>>> So remove it in the files in this commit, none of which can be built as
>>>>> modules.
>>>>
>>>> Applied as well. Squashed with next one. Same subject messes with b4, so
>>>> prefix should be corrected if these were to stay as separate patches.
>>>
>>> And all dropped. Run checkpatch before sending patches.
>> 
>> So... which of the 27 patches n this series is being dropped? It would
>> also be nice to know what the checkpatch problems were, because all I
>> can see from checkpatch is one error per patch, an apparent false
>
> The ones I responded that I applied - so the memory controller ones.

OK, resent those three (now two), checkpatch-clean and fused identical
subjects together. (Not adjusted non-memory-controller patch commit
logs, to avoid causing disruption with those that are already flowing
into the tree.)

Hope this is better :)

-- 
NULL && (void)