linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH next] wifi: rtw89: unlock on error path in rtw89_ops_unassign_vif

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: <87v7xjma5d.fsf@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 12:38:38 +0300
From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Cc: Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@...ltek.com>,  Zong-Zhe Yang
 <kevin_yang@...ltek.com>,  "linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org"
 <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,  "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,  "kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org"
 <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH next] wifi: rtw89: unlock on error path in
 rtw89_ops_unassign_vif_chanctx()

Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org> writes:

> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 03:32:23AM +0000, Ping-Ke Shih wrote:
>
>> Zong-Zhe Yang <kevin_yang@...ltek.com> wrote:
>> > Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > [...]
>> > >
>> > > @@ -1373,6 +1373,7 @@ static void rtw89_ops_unassign_vif_chanctx(struct ieee80211_hw
>> > > *hw,
>> > >
>> > >         rtwvif_link = rtwvif->links[link_conf->link_id];
>> > >         if (unlikely(!rtwvif_link)) {
>> > > +               mutex_unlock(&rtwdev->mutex);
>> > >                 rtw89_err(rtwdev,
>> > >                           "%s: rtwvif link (link_id %u) is not active\n",
>> > >                           __func__, link_conf->link_id);
>> > >
>> > 
>> > Acked-by: Zong-Zhe Yang <kevin_yang@...ltek.com>
>> > 
>> 
>> Thanks for the ack. 
>> 
>> Acked-by is often used by the maintainer, so I will change it to Reviewed-by
>> during committing. 
>
> To me Acked by just means you're okay with the patch.  When I use it, it means I
> don't feel qualified or interested enough to do a full review.  For example, if
> I complain about a v1 patch and they fix my issue in v2 then I like to say that
> I'm okay with it.  In that case I'll use Reviewed-by for a full review or Acked
> by if the bits that I care about are okay.  I don't like to complain and then
> just go silent.
>
> In the end, it doesn't make any difference.  You'll get CC'd on bug reports to
> do with the patch and you'll potentially feel bad for not spotting the bug, I
> guess.

I have understood that Acked-by should be only used by the corresponding
maintainers and the documentation seems to say the same:

https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html#when-to-use-acked-by-cc-and-co-developed-by

The reason I ask non-maintainers avoid using Acked-by is that it messes
our patchwork listings (it counts both Acked-by and Reviewed-by tags).

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches