linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] docs: submitting-patches: Discuss interleaved replies

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]

Message-ID: <10dfcc33-b3f9-57f7-1693-dd850f3adc6e@leemhuis.info>
Date:   Sat, 13 May 2023 11:24:04 +0200
From:   Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Rong Tao <rtoax@...mail.com>,
        Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>,
        Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@...mail.com>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: submitting-patches: Discuss interleaved replies

On 11.05.23 20:37, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 11:21:36AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> On 10.05.23 20:34, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> Top-posting has been strongly discouraged in Linux development, but this
>>> was actually not written anywhere in the common documentation about
>>> sending patches and replying to reviews. Add a section about trimming
>>> and interleaved replies.
>>
>> Thx for doing this.
>>
>>> [...]
>>> ---
>>>  Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)
>>
>> For some reason we have duplicate code^w documentation for this, hence
>> I'd say the same or a similar text should also be added to one of the
>> filed in Documentation/process/[0-9].*rst ; from a quick
>> Documentation/process/6.Followthrough.rst might be the best one.
>>
>> Maybe in fact the text should move there and submitting-patches.rst
>> should have a much shorter version, as it's meant to be the terser of
>> the two docs about this.
> 
> Hm, The place where it is mentioned is even shorter,

Ohh, it is mentioned there already? I briefly looked, but had missed it.
Sorry. :-/

> so I kind of like
> it in submittingpatches. But, I'm open to whatever seems best.

Guess that is Jonathan's call to make. Your v2 patch to me looks a bit
like adding quite a bit of new and slow code to the fast path while
adjusting faster code in the slow path.

But the relation and interaction between those two texts in a bit messy
already, so maybe it doesn't matter that much.

Ciao, Thorsten