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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <d1f3b8e4-1a15-45a2-a1c2-c21f6f471190@stanley.mountain>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2024 14:37:45 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To: James Chapman <jchapman@...alix.com>
Cc: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, 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 Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 11:48:00AM +0100, James Chapman wrote:
> 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.

Signed-off-by is kind of like signing a legal document to say that there is no
stolen copyright code from SCO.  You don't need to sign it if you're not
handling the code.

Reviewed-by is fine or Acked-by is also fine.  Reviewers will look at them the
same way.

regards,
dan carpenter