linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] scripts: generate_rust_analyzer: Add message to sysroot assertion

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CANiq72nCdaAJhkYpiw-mrzSSyWuo=shv7kQsmwvXE4VQs86DPA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2025 18:06:15 +0100
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Maurice Hieronymus <mhi@...lbox.org>
Cc: ojeda@...nel.org, alex.gaynor@...il.com, boqun.feng@...il.com, 
	gary@...yguo.net, bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com, benno.lossin@...ton.me, 
	a.hindborg@...nel.org, aliceryhl@...gle.com, tmgross@...ch.edu, 
	rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] scripts: generate_rust_analyzer: Add message to
 sysroot assertion

On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 5:49 PM Maurice Hieronymus <mhi@...lbox.org> wrote:
>
> I’m still getting familiar with the mailing list workflow, so I have
> Ia question regarding this. You mentioned that keeping or removing the
> Icomment is fine. In cases like this, if I decide not to change the
> Ipatch, should I still send a reply, or would it be picked up as-is
> Ieventually? 'm just curious since I plan to contribute more in the near
> Ifuture.

Sometimes maintainers can fix things when they apply a patch, but in
general it always helps to send a new version to reduce their workload
and the risk of making a mistake last minute (and usually saying what
they modified in a [ ...]  comment etc.), so thanks for the v3 :)

(By the way, there is a "I" in each line after the first in your reply.)

Cheers,
Miguel