netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v1 0/8] netfilter: header compilation fixes

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: <20190813101403.ly5z5q6xvyno3xdd@salvia>
Date:   Tue, 13 Aug 2019 12:14:03 +0200
From:   Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
To:     Jeremy Sowden <jeremy@...zel.net>
Cc:     Netfilter Devel <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Net Dev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1 0/8] netfilter: header compilation fixes

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 11:04:24AM +0100, Jeremy Sowden wrote:
> On 2019-08-13, at 11:55:29 +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 03:16:57PM +0100, Jeremy Sowden wrote:
> > > A number of netfilter header files are on the header-test blacklist
> > > becuse they cannot be compiled stand-alone.   There are two main
> > > reasons for this: missing inclusions of other headers, and missing
> > > conditionals checking for CONFIG_* symbols.
> > >
> > > The first six of these patches rectify these omissions, the seventh
> > > removes some unnecessary "#ifdef __KERNEL__" checks, and the last
> > > removes all the NF headers from the blacklist.
> > >
> > > I've cc'ed Masahiro Yamada because the last patch removes 74 lines
> > > from include/Kbuild and may conflict with his kbuild tree.
> >
> > Series applied, one comment below.
> >
> > > Jeremy Sowden (8):
> > >   netfilter: inlined four headers files into another one.
> > >   netfilter: added missing includes to a number of header-files.
> > >   netfilter: added missing IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BRIDGE_NETFILTER) checks to
> > >     header-file.
> > >   netfilter: added missing IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NF_TABLES) check to
> > >     header-file.
> > >   netfilter: added missing IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NF_CONNTRACK) checks to
> > >     some header-files.
> > >   netfilter: added missing IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NETFILTER) checks to some
> > >     header-files.
> > >   netfilter: removed "#ifdef __KERNEL__" guards from some headers.
> > >   kbuild: removed all netfilter headers from header-test blacklist.
> >
> > Would you mind if - before pushing this out - I do this string
> > replacement for the patch subject?
> >
> > s/added/add
> > s/removed/remove
> > s/inlined/inline
> >
> > I was told present tense is preferred for description. Otherwise, I'll
> > leave them as is.
> 
> I adopted past tenses because at the point at which one is reading the
> description of a commit, one is usually reading about old behaviour and
> what has been done to change it.  However, I wasn't aware that there was
> a preference and I am happy to switch to the present tense instead, so
> by all means feel free to change them.

This is not in the Documentation tree, or I could not find this in a
quick git grep:

https://kernelnewbies.org/PatchPhilosophy

"In patch descriptions and in the subject, it is common and preferable
to use present-tense, imperative language. Write as if you are telling
git what to do with your patch."

I remember though that maintainers have been asking for this in the
past.

Thanks!