linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rust: arc: remove unused PhantomData

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: <CAJ-ks9kWuQEaj7DUqHm50jAS3ageYZktsiaJvJmava=76mJP5w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2024 15:08:56 -0400
From: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com>
To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, 
	Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...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>, 
	Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rust: arc: remove unused PhantomData

On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 2:30 PM Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 5:41 PM Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > The upstream changes to dropck predate the PR I linked up-thread which
> > landed in 2017. Since this Arc code was written in 2022, it never had
> > any effect. Isn't it proper to keep the "Fixes" tag?
>
> If there is a bug, definitely yes, but I don't think that applies is
> -- this is more of a cleanup, no?
>
> Sometimes things are marked as "fixes" that are perhaps a stretch
> (e.g. a typo in a comment). It depends a bit on the maintainer and how
> we define "bug" (e.g. does it count in docs, or just actual end
> users). But here it just seems something is superfluous, at worst, and
> it does not need to be backported either. Even if we kept the tag for
> some reason, I think this belongs in `rust-next`.

Thanks, I forgot that "Fixes" changes are backported. This makes sense!

> But if I am missing something, and this does indeed fix something that
> we should prioritize, please let me know!
>
> What looks more important, to me, is to clarify/document why (or why
> not) we have it, regardless of whether we keep it or not, i.e. having
> thought about it, I think it wouldn't hurt having a line/comment even
> if we remove it.

Will do.

> Thanks!
>
> Cheers,
> Miguel