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: <31ae4628-037a-4ccf-87d5-4cf00ae9c21e@ancud.ru>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 14:51:18 +0300
From: Nikita Kiryushin <kiryushin@...ud.ru>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Michael Chan <mchan@...adcom.com>,
 Pavan Chebbi <pavan.chebbi@...adcom.com>,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 lvc-project@...uxtesting.org, Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] tg3: Remove residual error handling in
 tg3_suspend

Thank you for the feedback!

> Please stop adding these lines, they are unless.
> If you want to attribute the work to some project / employer
> add (SVACE) to your author lines.
>
Tool used signature line (the SVACE one) in that format was put in the
patch as required by lvc-project protocols. I guess, it is used for some
automation by the project, but I can agree, that the needs of some
specific project should not add cruft to the general code base/version control.

Thank you for expressing annoyance about it, I hope it will trigger conversation
about better way of adding the needed information for further iterations of the
project (as this thread is being mirrored to the project mailing list).
> How is deleting dead code a fix?
Originally, that was intended as a fix of a potential problematic case, that
tg3_power_down_prepare() could change in the future, returning a
non-zero status (which would make the removed code not dead, but undead).
But than, as patch evolved, it became a straight up dead code removal.
Probably, I should have removed the "fixes" line at that point, but
I think it still useful as a reference point to know, after which commit this patch
becomes relevant (to know, if it should be back-ported to some version or not,
for example).As I guess from the guide, patches "Fixes:" tag has some special treatment in the development cycle, but what would be more appropriate in that case?
> Hopefully you can find in there whether we suggest posting new versions
> in reply to the old ones..
Thank you for pointing this out! Missed the part about "The new version of
patches should be posted as a separate thread, not as a reply to the
previous posting. Change log should include a link to the previous posting"
while reading netdev guide.

Should I resubmit the patch in the separate thread now? If so, should I
make any changes to it (as discussed)? Would it bump the patch version
(the patch would essentially be the same, as only some metadata like
change log itself would change)?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ