netdev - Re: [PATCH] dpll: indent DPLL option type by a tab

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]

Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 13:24:58 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc: Prasad Pandit <ppandit@...hat.com>,
	Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>,
	Arkadiusz Kubalewski <arkadiusz.kubalewski@...el.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Prasad Pandit <pjp@...oraproject.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dpll: indent DPLL option type by a tab

On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 01:13:59PM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 12:35:21PM CET, ppandit@...hat.com wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >Thank you for a quick response.
> >
> >On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 at 16:41, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> wrote:
> >> You should indicate the target tree:
> >> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/next/process/maintainer-netdev.html?highlight=network#tl-dr
> >
> >* It is for the -net tree IIUC, not net-next.
> 
> Okay.
> 
> 
> >
> >> Also, please include "Fixes" tag.
> >
> >* Last time they said not to include "Fixes" tag ->
> >https://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2024-March/911714.html
> 
> AFAIU and IIRC, discussed couple of times, the outcome is that Fixes
> should be included for netdev patches every time, no matter what is the
> matter of the actual fix and target tree. Please include it. For -net it
> is actually required.
> 

I think there is some confusion here.  When Prasad Pandit says it
affects "Kconfig parsers", he is talking about his out-of-tree program.
https://github.com/pjps/config-kernel  It doesn't affect anything
in-tree so we wouldn't normally give it a Fixes tag.

There is a gray area around silencing static checker warnings.  Most of
the time, people say to not include a fixes tag for that.  But sometimes
people go the other way.  In this case, it's not really a static checker
warning, it's just a white space issue.  Also Prasad should just modify
config-kernel to match the in-kernel parser.

It's true that for Fixes it doesn't matter the tree, it only matters if
it's a bugfix.  People sometimes used to say "I'm not including a Fixes
tag because this is too new for -stable kernels".  But actually having
a Fixes tag that points to a very recent bug helps the stable
maintainers automatically mark it as NOT necessary.  (The stable
maintainers do sometimes backport patches which were not explicitly
marked with a Fixes tag because people forget to tag things sometimes).

regards,
dan carpenter