netdev - Re: [PATCH v21 01/23] cxl/mem: refactor memdev allocation

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: <c40d91b5-d251-47a3-8672-b9ea5c54eb2a@amd.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2025 18:27:50 +0000
From: Alejandro Lucero Palau <alucerop@....com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>,
 alejandro.lucero-palau@....com
Cc: linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 dan.j.williams@...el.com, edward.cree@....com, davem@...emloft.net,
 kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, dave.jiang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v21 01/23] cxl/mem: refactor memdev allocation


On 11/20/25 18:08, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 19:22:14 +0000
> alejandro.lucero-palau@....com wrote:
>
>> From: Alejandro Lucero <alucerop@....com>
>>
>> In preparation for always-synchronous memdev attach, refactor memdev
>> allocation and fix release bug in devm_cxl_add_memdev() when error after
>> a successful allocation.
>>
>> The diff is busy as this moves cxl_memdev_alloc() down below the definition
>> of cxl_memdev_fops and introduces devm_cxl_memdev_add_or_reset() to
>> preclude needing to export more symbols from the cxl_core.
>>
>> Fixes: 1c3333a28d45 ("cxl/mem: Do not rely on device_add() side effects for dev_set_name() failures")
>>
> No line break here. Fixes is part of the tag block and some tools
> get grumpy if that isn't contiguous.  That includes a bot that runs
> on linux-next.
>

OK


>> Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Lucero <alucerop@....com>
> This SOB chain is wrong.  What was Dan's role in this?  As first SOB with no
> Co-developed tag he would normally also be the author (From above)


The original patch is Dan's work. I did change it.


 From the previous revision I asked what I should do and if adding my 
Signed-off to Dan's one would be enough. Dave's answer was a yes.

Someone, likely I, misunderstood something in that exchange.


I did add my Signed-off to the patches 1 to 4 along with Dan's ones, 
what I think it was suggested by Dave as well in another review.


Please, tell me what should I do here.


Thank you


>
> I'm out of time for today so will leave review for another time. Just flagging
> that without these tag chains being correct Dave can't pick this up even
> if everything else is good.
>