netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] l2tp: remove unneeded null check in l2tp_v2_session_get

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1dce7949-58de-ce8b-7123-3c2c2dfef276@katalix.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2024 11:48:00 +0100
From: James Chapman <jchapman@...alix.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
 kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, dsahern@...nel.org, tparkin@...alix.com,
 kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] l2tp: remove unneeded null check in
 l2tp_v2_session_get_next

On 03/09/2024 09:02, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 08:24:17AM +0100, Simon Horman wrote:
>>> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
>>> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/r/202408111407.HtON8jqa-lkp@intel.com/
>>> CC: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: James Chapman <jchapman@...alix.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tom Parkin <tparkin@...alix.com>
>>
>> And as you posted the patch, it would be slightly more intuitive
>> if your SoB line came last. But I've seen conflicting advice about
>> the order of tags within the past weeks.
> 
> It should be in chronological order.
> 
> People generally aren't going to get too fussed about the order except the
> Signed-off-by tags.  Everyone who handles the patch adds their Signed-off-by to
> the end.  Right now it looks like James wrote the patch and then Tom is the
> maintainer who merged it.  Co-developed-by?

I'm probably using tags incorrectly. When Tom or I submit kernel patches 
to netdev, we usually review each other's work first before sending the 
patch to netdev. But we thought that adding a Reviewed-by tag might 
short-cut proper community review, hence we use SoB to indicate that 
we're both happy with the patch and we're both interested in review 
feedback on it.

On reflection, Acked-by would be better for this. I'll send a v2 with 
Acked-by to avoid confusion.

Thanks!

--
pw-bot: cr