linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] rust: device: rename "Device::from

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]

Message-ID: <CAM_RzfbJ5qsHKfNxV1EzhYEDdCmXP0THH=g1MX1yHiRP=9tYFA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 11:57:25 -0300
From: Guilherme Giácomo Simões <trintaeoitogc@...il.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: rafael@...nel.org, ojeda@...nel.org, alex.gaynor@...il.com, 
	boqun.feng@...il.com, gary@...yguo.net, bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com, 
	benno.lossin@...ton.me, aliceryhl@...gle.com, mcgrof@...nel.org, 
	russ.weight@...ux.dev, dakr@...hat.com, a.hindborg@...nel.org, 
	rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] rust: device: rename "Device::from_raw()"

Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> writes:
>
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 11:43:27AM -0300, Guilherme Giacomo Simoes wrote:
> > This function increments the refcount by a call to
> > "bindings::get_device(ptr)". This can be confused because, the function
> > Arch::from_raw() from standard library, don't increments the refcount.
> > Hence, rename "Device::from_raw()" to avoid confusion with other
> > "from_raw" semantics.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Guilherme Giacomo Simoes <trintaeoitogc@...il.com>
> > ---
> >  rust/kernel/device.rs   | 2 +-
> >  rust/kernel/firmware.rs | 2 +-
> >  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.  You have sent him
> a patch that has triggered this response.  He used to manually respond
> to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept
> writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was
> created.  Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem
> in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux
> kernel tree.
>
> You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s)
> as indicated below:
>
> - This looks like a new version of a previously submitted patch, but you
>   did not list below the --- line any changes from the previous version.
>   Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the
>   kernel file, Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for what
>   needs to be done here to properly describe this.
>
> If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about
> how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and
> Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
> from other developers.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h's patch email bot

Yeah, I was think that only in 0/1 I should explain the changes ..
I'm was wrong.   I'll put the changelog in 1/1 too.