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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 9 Mar 2023 07:19:16 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Nick Alcock <nick.alcock@...cle.com>
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 08/03/2023 21:25, Nick Alcock wrote:
> 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 :)

If you send a new patch, mark it appropriately and include changelog.

Best regards,
Krzysztof