linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 03/11] fsopen.2: document 'new' mount api

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: <zax5dst65kektsdjgvktpfxmwppzczzl7t2etciywpkl2ywmib@u57e6fkrddcw>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2025 15:52:37 +0200
From: Alejandro Colomar <alx@...nel.org>
To: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>
Cc: "Michael T. Kerrisk" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>, 
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Askar Safin <safinaskar@...omail.com>, 
	"G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@...il.com>, linux-man@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/11] fsopen.2: document 'new' mount api

Hi Aleksa,

On Thu, Aug 07, 2025 at 11:27:04PM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> > I think 'author' is more appropriate than 'developer' for documentation.
> > It is also more consistent with the Copyright notice, which assigns
> > copyright to the authors (documented in AUTHORS).  And ironically, even
> > the kernel documentation about Co-authored-by talks about authorship

(Oops, s/Co-authored-by/Co-developed-by/)

> > instead of development:
> > 
> > 	Co-developed-by: states that the patch was co-created by
> > 	multiple developers; it is used to give attribution to
> > 	co-authors (in addition to the author attributed by the From:
> > 	tag) when several people work on a single patch.
> 
> Sure, fixed.
> 
> Can you also clarify whether CONTRIBUTING.d/patches/range-diff is
> required for submissions? I don't think b4 supports including it (and I
> really would prefer to not have to use raw git-send-email again just for
> man-pages -- b4 has so many benefits over raw git-send-email). Is the
> b4-style changelog I include in the cover-letter sufficient?

Yes, that's sufficient.  As Captain Barbossa would say, "the code is
more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules".  ;)

> I like to think of myself as a fairly prolific git user, but I don't
> think I've ever seen --range-diff= output in a git-send-email patch
> before...

Yup, I only learnt about a few years ago.  I have to say it's great as
a reviewer; it changed my efficiency reviewing code when we started
using it at $dayjob-1.

And even as a submitter, it has also saved me a few times, when I
introduced a regression in some revision of a patch set, and I could
easily trace back to the revision where I had introduced it by reading
the range diffs, which are much shorter than the actual code.

Maybe we could ping Konstantin to add this to b4?


Cheers,
Alex

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)