linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] rust: device: implement device context marker

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: <CANiq72n9Toi2gMQyADnV+bGcOUFGs7LCNeK+dFpHmaYv=QataQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 18:43:37 +0100
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, rafael@...nel.org, 
	bhelgaas@...gle.com, ojeda@...nel.org, alex.gaynor@...il.com, 
	gary@...yguo.net, bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com, benno.lossin@...ton.me, 
	a.hindborg@...nel.org, aliceryhl@...gle.com, tmgross@...ch.edu, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, 
	rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] rust: device: implement device context marker

On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 6:31 PM Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Is that a thing? When I apply patches I usully keep ACKs, RBs and SOBs together
> at the bottom.

It depends on the maintainers/subsystem. Some do chronological, some
do groups (even to the point of having a defined order). Chronological
loses less information but "looks worse". Some consider RBs should go
on top, others below.

I think most people respect the SoB boundary though, when applying a
patch from someone else, and that is likely the most important part.

Cheers,
Miguel