linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] PM: EM: Fix potential division-by-zero error in em_compute

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: <tencent_7F0AB62F9DA4BF9F250063A7421F23AC3908@qq.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 15:41:58 +0800
From: Yaxiong Tian <iambestgod@...com>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Yaxiong Tian <tianyaxiong@...inos.cn>,
 rafael@...nel.org, Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] PM: EM: Fix potential division-by-zero error in
 em_compute_costs()



在 2025/4/17 15:20, Geert Uytterhoeven 写道:
> Hi Yaxiong,
> 
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 at 11:14, Yaxiong Tian <iambestgod@...com> wrote:
>> I wasn’t sure whether the new patch should reuse the current Message-ID
>> or create a new one, so I checked with ChatGPT and kept the original
>> Message-ID for v2. If a new Message-ID is required, I can resend the
>> email.
> 
> Different (revisions of) patches must have different Message-IDs,
> else they can no longer be distinguished by our tooling.
> Fortunately it seems like you didn't succeed (which is good ;-),
> as all four revisions do have different Message-IDs:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/tencent_8478BF8F2549630842D323E7394CB6F49D08@qq.com/
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/tencent_EE27C7D1D6BDB3EE57A2C467CC59A866C405@qq.com/
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/tencent_6D2374392DB66C9D23BF6E2546638A42EC08@qq.com/
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/tencent_2256A7C02F7849F1D89390E488704E826D06@qq.com/
> 
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
> 
>                          Geert
> 
Thank you for your explanation. My previous description might have been
a bit unclear. Actually, what I meant was whether it should be --in-
reply-to=original Message-ID. I think if it's a patch, replying to the
  original Message-ID would be better.