linux-kernel - Re: [v2] i2c: busses: fix parameter check in i2c_gpio_fault_injector

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

Message-ID: <20230712215343.57yhhk5kajtsfaax@intel.intel>
Date:   Wed, 12 Jul 2023 23:53:43 +0200
From:   Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
Cc:     Minjie Du <duminjie@...o.com>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, opensource.kernel@...o.com,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>
Subject: Re: [v2] i2c: busses: fix parameter check in
 i2c_gpio_fault_injector_init()

Hi Markus,

On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 08:30:11PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > > v1-v2:
> > > Fix judge typo.
> >
> > Please next time add the changelog after the "---" section.
> >
> > You will also need:
> >
> > Fixes: 14911c6f48ec ("i2c: gpio: add fault injector")
> > Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>
> > Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # v4.16+
> >
> > Said that:
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>
> 
> * How appropriate is your presentation of this tag “in advance”?
 
1. These are all things that can be fixed before pushing the
   patch. I Wouldn't feel like asking to resend for a Fixes tag
   and few minor adjustments in the commit log, because:

   1a. it's spam in the mailing list
   1b. it annoys the person who sent the fix and demotivates him
       to send more fixes

   but more important:

   1c. I learned that tools like b4 are able to take the Fixes:
       tag even afterwards. I had this same discussion just
       today[*].

2. This is quite a common practice in other communities. However,
   with Wolfram we agreed that I wouldn't r-b "in advance" after
   asking minor fixes in the patch (but not in the commit log).

> * Would you like to take another look at the properties for
>   the reviewer's statement of oversight?
> 
> See also:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.5-rc1#n542
> 
> 
> Would a subject like “[PATCH v3] i2c: gpio: Fix an error check in i2c_gpio_fault_injector_init()”
> be more appropriate?

Every community has its own rules. I met both the approaches,
that's why I wouldn't be so strict. I'm sure Minjie will be able
to fix those mistakes in the future.

Said that... Minjie, do you mind sending a v3 with the commit log
fixed and all the proper tags and make everyone happy? :)

Andi

[*] https://lore.kernel.org/all/32ca3740-901c-47f2-81ab-c51e8751eefe@sirena.org.uk/