netdev - RE: [kbuild-all] Re: [PATCH net-next] net: Variable SLAAC: SLAAC with prefixes of arbitrary length in PIO

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]

Date:   Fri, 13 Nov 2020 01:01:11 +0000
From:   "Li, Philip" <philip.li@...el.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC:     lkp <lkp@...el.com>, Dmytro Shytyi <dmytro@...tyi.net>,
        kuznet <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
        yoshfuji <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        liuhangbin <liuhangbin@...il.com>, davem <davem@...emloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kbuild-all@...ts.01.org" <kbuild-all@...ts.01.org>
Subject: RE: [kbuild-all] Re: [PATCH net-next] net: Variable SLAAC: SLAAC with
 prefixes of arbitrary length in PIO

> 
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 00:32:55 +0000 Li, Philip wrote:
> > > Subject: [kbuild-all] Re: [PATCH net-next] net: Variable SLAAC: SLAAC
> with
> > > prefixes of arbitrary length in PIO
> > >
> > > On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 09:34:24 +0800 kernel test robot wrote:
> > > > If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag as appropriate
> > > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
> > >
> > > Good people of kernel test robot, could you please rephrase this to say
> > > that the tag is only appropriate if someone is sending a fix up/follow
> > > up patch?
> > Thanks for the input, based on your suggestion how about
> >
> > Kindly add below tag as appropriate if you send a fix up/follow up patch
> 
> I'm not sure myself how best to phrase it, I'm not a native speaker.
> How about:
> 
> Kindly add below tag if you send a new patch solely addressing this issue
Thanks, we will consider this, and provide update next week to gather
more inputs. If anyone has further suggestion, it will be very welcome.

There did have some confusion and discussed earlier actually regarding
when/how to add the Reported-by, thus we use appropriate to let developer
decide the best choice for his own situation. But if it leads to confusion,
we will keep looking for a better way.

BTW: if we just remove this message line, and leave below Reported-by only, would
it be a good choice? 

> 
> > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
> >
> > Or any wording change suggestion to make it more clear/friendly?