linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rust: update dbg macro outputs in docs

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: <CACD3TDPbBnZuvr0jJVtrgs_4AXXk1+HGZEH_uPp2iQVf+4Ff6A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2024 11:00:13 +0200
From: Deepak <iapain@...il.com>
To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, 
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, 
	Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, 
	Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>, Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>, 
	Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>, 
	Nell Shamrell-Harrington <nells@...ux.microsoft.com>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rust: update dbg macro outputs in docs

Hi,

Thanks for the quick review. I will rework on this patch.

>   - It should explain what the change is and why it is done --
> currently it just says "outdated examples", without mentioning why
> they are updated or what the change is.

Sorry for not being outward with my commit message and thanks for
mentioning this. I will rework on that.

>   - Please read the notes in the GitHub issue to know what tags you
> should add above the Signed-off-by one.

I have clearly missed that. I will include this in next patch version

>   - Commit messages should not start with "Hi," (you can, however, add
> that kind of text/message below the `---` line and it will not go into
> the commit) and they should generally be written using the imperative
> mood.

Noted

>   - Did you copy the output from the standard library? Did you
> double-check if our output looks like that (in terms of the column
> number)? Mentioning this in the commit message is a good idea.

Output wasn't copied from std lib, instead it was adjusted to reflect examples.

>   - The GitHub issue mentioned the column numbers, so this is good;
> however, did you compare this file with the standard library one to
> check if other changes/improvements could be imported?

I did compare `std_vendor.rs` with std lib and I didn't observe any
change in the code. As mentioned in the GH issue, only inconsistency
which I did notice as well was the missing column number in outputs.

Cheers,
Deepak