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: <DFV3AYO352GC.1XSOQB0PG25GT@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2026 12:43:27 +0100
From: "Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@...nel.org>
To: "John Hubbard" <jhubbard@...dia.com>
Cc: "Miguel Ojeda" <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>, "Zhi Wang"
 <zhiw@...dia.com>, <rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>,
 <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.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 Thu Jan 22, 2026 at 3:24 AM CET, John Hubbard wrote:
> 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.

I think it depends on what you mean with "we". In the end it really depends on
the particular subsystem.

For instance, MM tends to add Cc: tags when a patch is applied for everyone that
patch was sent to before.

Whereas for the subsystems I (co-)maintain it would at least raise eyebrows and
likely result in a kind request asking not to do it.

> 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.

I don't mind using Cc: tags in this paricular way, but it should be noted that
it shifts the semantics of those tags from "those people should really get a
chance to comment before this is merged" to "those people should get a chance to
follow-up given that they have been providing feedback on a previous version".