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: <2025-08-07.1754576582-puny-spade-blotchy-axiom-winking-overtone-AerGh5@cyphar.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2025 00:26:48 +1000
From: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>
To: Alejandro Colomar <alx@...nel.org>, 
	Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@...uxfoundation.org>
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

On 2025-08-07, Alejandro Colomar <alx@...nel.org> wrote:
> 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?

Konstantin, would you be interested in a patch to add --range-diff to
the trailing bits of cover letters? I would guess that b4 already has
all of the necessary metadata to reference the right commits.

It seems like a fairly neat way of providing some more metadata about
changes between patchsets, for folks that care about that information.

-- 
Aleksa Sarai
Senior Software Engineer (Containers)
SUSE Linux GmbH
https://www.cyphar.com/

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)