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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <33eec982e2ae94c7141d135f1de9bec02a60735b.camel@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 08:36:46 +0200 From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com> To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org> Cc: Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, Philipp Rosenberger <p.rosenberger@...bus.com>, Zhi Han <hanzhi09@...il.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: enc28j60: Use threaded interrupt instead of workqueue On Wed, 2023-05-10 at 19:05 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Tue, 9 May 2023 16:56:13 +0300 Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > > This is part of changelog which doesn't belong to commit message. The > > > > examples which you can find in git log, for such format like you used, > > > > are usually reserved to maintainers when they apply the patch. > > > > > > Is that a new rule? > > > > No, this rule always existed, just some of the maintainers didn't care > > about it. > > > > > > > > Honestly I think it's important to mention changes applied to > > > someone else's patch, if only to let it be known who's to blame > > > for any mistakes. > > > > Right, this is why maintainers use this notation when they apply > > patches. In your case, you are submitter, patch is not applied yet > > and all changes can be easily seen through lore web interface. > > > > > > > > I'm seeing plenty of recent precedent in the git history where > > > non-committers fixed up patches and made their changes known in > > > this way, e.g.: > > > > It doesn't make it correct. > > Documentation/maintainer/modifying-patches.rst > > TBH I'm not sure if this is the correct reading of this doc. > I don't see any problem with Lukas using the common notation. > It makes it quite obvious what he changed and the changes are > not invasive enough to warrant a major rewrite of the commit msg. My reading of such documentation is that (sub-)maintainers could be (more frequently) called to this kind of editing, but such editing is not restricted. In this specific case I could not find quickly via lore references to the originating patch, so I find the editing useful. The rationale of the mentioned process documentation is avoiding - when possible and sensible - unneeded back and forth: I think we could and should accept the patch in its current form. I'm leaving it on PW a little more, in case there are strong, different opinions. Cheers, Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists