linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] fanotify accounting for fs/splice.c

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]

Date:   Wed, 28 Jun 2023 09:02:27 +0300
From:   Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
To:     Ahelenia Ziemiańska 
        <nabijaczleweli@...ijaczleweli.xyz>
Cc:     Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Chung-Chiang Cheng <cccheng@...ology.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] fanotify accounting for fs/splice.c

On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 11:50 PM Ahelenia Ziemiańska
<nabijaczleweli@...ijaczleweli.xyz> wrote:
>
> Always generate modify out, access in for splice;
> this gets automatically merged with no ugly special cases.

Ahelenia,

Obviously, you are new to sending patches to the kernel
and you appear to be a very enthusiastic and fast learner,
so I assume you won't mind getting some tips that you won't
find in any document.

a) CC LTP only on tests, not on the kernel patches

b) Please don't post these "diff" patches.
Developers (and bots) should be able to understand which
upstream commit a patch is based on (git format-patch provides that info).

I mean you can send those diff patches as part of a conversation to
explain yourself, that's fine, just don't post them as if they are patches
for review.

c) When there are prospect reviewers that have not reviewed v1
(especially inotify maintainer), it is better to wait at least one day posting
v2 and v3 and v4 ;), because:
1. It is better to accumulate review comments from several reviewers
2. Different reviewers may disagree, so if you are just following my
    advice you may need to go back and forth until everyone is happy
3. It's racy - reviewers may be in the middle of review of v1 without
    realizing that v2,v3,v4 is already in their inbox, so that's creating
    extra work for them - not a good outcome

Going to review v4....

Thanks,
Amir.