linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 1/4] posix-timers: Make next_posix_timer_id an atomic

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: <87h64oiuey.ffs@tglx>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 15:04:53 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>, Frederic Weisbecker
 <frederic@...nel.org>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 Benjamin Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Eric Dumazet
 <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/4] posix-timers: Make next_posix_timer_id an atomic_t

On Thu, Feb 20 2025 at 09:49, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 9:09 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>> > This allows the following patch to use RCU.
>>
>> Your patch ordering is slightly off by two :)
>>
>> And it fails to explain for what RCU can be used....
>
> This is explained in the following patches.

The changelog of a patch has to be self contained. The 'following patch'
has no meaning when the patch is merged.

> If I add nothing in the changelog, you complain the changelog is not
> explaining anything.
>
> I suggest you write the patches. because I feel a huge resistance,
> which I do not understand.

I'm just asking that I get properly written change logs which adhere to
the documented change log requirements.

How does that qualify as resistance?

Thanks,

        tglx