linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 1/5] rust: devres: style for imports

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: <d0b6b17a-1521-4259-a1e1-3270af7f787f@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2026 18:24:02 -0800
From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>, Zhi Wang <zhiw@...dia.com>
Cc: rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dakr@...nel.org, aliceryhl@...gle.com,
 bhelgaas@...gle.com, kwilczynski@...nel.org, ojeda@...nel.org,
 alex.gaynor@...il.com, boqun.feng@...il.com, gary@...yguo.net,
 bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com, lossin@...nel.org, a.hindborg@...nel.org,
 tmgross@...ch.edu, markus.probst@...teo.de, helgaas@...nel.org,
 cjia@...dia.com, smitra@...dia.com, ankita@...dia.com, aniketa@...dia.com,
 kwankhede@...dia.com, targupta@...dia.com, acourbot@...dia.com,
 joelagnelf@...dia.com, zhiwang@...nel.org, daniel.almeida@...labora.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 1/5] rust: devres: style for imports

On 1/21/26 5:55 PM, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 10:30 AM Zhi Wang <zhiw@...dia.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sure.I am trying to Cc folks who comments in the patch for crediting
>> their efforts. :)
> 
> Ah, I see, thanks.
> 
> As far as I understand the docs, Cc: is intended to document in the
> commit message that someone had the chance to discuss the patch.
> 
> I can see that, if someone gave feedback in a previous version, then
> it is a way to say that they had the chance to review the new version,
> so that makes sense. Having said that, if we did systematically that,
> the list of explicit Cc's would grow quite a bit...

Yes. But for smaller discussions, this is effectively a convenient way
to implement your guideline below, without having to spend too much time
mentally weighing "which of these replies is from a Real Stakeholder".

So it's reasonable approximate guideline to use in many situations.
In other words, "not quite systematically" seems about right.

> 
> Personally, I always understood the tag as meant for key stakeholders
> that you really want to explicitly mention in the commit message as
> having been involved (and that didn't otherwise give another tag at
> the end of the process), versus everyone else that is Cc as usual in
> the email headers.
> 

Yes.

> But I have seen it used in different ways in the kernel... :)

Yes, and in particular, there is a mini-trend to include everyone
from scripts/get_maintainer.pl's output, as a Cc, even on v0 of a
series, before any discussion. That can bloat the commit log really
heavily, and people are mildly pushing back against it. I'm glad
we aren't doing that here.

thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard