linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5] alpha: Clean-up the panic notifier code

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:   Tue, 10 Oct 2023 01:16:03 +0100 (BST)
From:   "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...am.me.uk>
To:     "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...lia.com>
cc:     linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, mattst88@...il.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-dev@...lia.com,
        kernel@...ccoli.net, Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
        Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@...aro.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] alpha: Clean-up the panic notifier code

On Sat, 2 Sep 2023, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:

> So, let's clean the code and set the notifier to run as the
> latest, following the same approach other architectures are
> doing - also, remove the unnecessary include of a header already
> included indirectly.

 FWIW my understanding is our current policy is not to rely on indirect 
inclusions and if a given source relies on declarations or definitions 
provided by a header, then it is supposed to pull it explicitly.

 And in any case such an unrelated self-contained change is expected to be 
sent as a separate patch, in a series if there's a mechanical dependency.

  Maciej