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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <ad65998a-e00b-4388-b450-ed64c76a6d25@amd.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2025 13:46:13 +0000
From: Alejandro Lucero Palau <alucerop@....com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Cc: alejandro.lucero-palau@....com, 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 11/21/25 12:06, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 18:27:50 +0000
> Alejandro Lucero Palau <alucerop@....com> wrote:
>
>> 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


Oh, the amend for patch 1 and 2 after the refactoring!


Silly me. I will do so.


Thank you


>>   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.
> Change the author to Dan.  IIRC
>
> git commit --amend --author="Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>"
>
> should do that for you
>
> Then author and first SoB will be Dan and you will be noting you 'handled'
> the patch. Feel free to add a comment # Changed XYZ
> to your SoB - or if appropriate a co-developed-by for yourself.
>
>
>>
>> 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.
>>>   
>>