From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753306AbdJSMQ6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Oct 2017 08:16:58 -0400 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:1914 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751320AbdJSMQ4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Oct 2017 08:16:56 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.43,401,1503385200"; d="scan'208";a="164496452" Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 15:16:49 +0300 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: SF Markus Elfring Cc: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Mimi Zohar , Julia Lawall , Alexander Steffen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Andy Shevchenko , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Corentin Labbe , Jason Gunthorpe , Jerry Snitselaar , Kenneth Goldman , Michael Ellerman , Nayna Jain , Paul Mackerras , Peter =?iso-8859-1?Q?H=FCwe?= , Stefan Berger Subject: Re: char/tpm: Improve a size determination in nine functions Message-ID: <20171019121649.cl3ppzem2scdxthm@linux.intel.com> References: <1508244757.4234.60.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1508253453.4234.81.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <9689f036-ba9f-d23b-cf89-c289bc308771@users.sourceforge.net> <20171018145735.lpzwakatsty7emlw@linux.intel.com> <351cf78a-14f6-c6e7-2902-048e7dc57a14@users.sourceforge.net> <20171018155946.e7ga7jyex6eia252@linux.intel.com> <55d76224-3019-6614-70ce-ba260bbcd54f@users.sourceforge.net> <20171018171858.3lcfr2kcp53fngwv@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 07:48:06PM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > For 1/4 and 2/4: explain why the message can be omitted. > > Why did you not reply directly with this request for the update steps > with the subject “Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation > in tpm_…()”? > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10009405/ > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10009415/ > > I find that there can be difficulty to show an appropriate information > source for the reasonable explanation of this change pattern. > > > > Remove sentence about Coccinelle. > > I got the impression that there is a bit of value in such > a kind of attribution. > > > > That's all. > > I assume that there might be also some communication challenges involved. > > > > 3/4: definitive NAK, too much noise compared to value. > > I tried to reduce deviations from the Linux coding style again. > You do not like such an attempt for this software area so far. > > > > 4/4: this a good commit message. > > Why did you not reply directly with this feedback for the update step > “[PATCH 4/4] char/tpm: Less checks in tpm_ibmvtpm_probe() after error detection”? > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10009429/ > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/<09a2c3a1-1b10-507d-a866-258b570f6da1@users.sourceforge.net> > > > > Requires a Tested-by before can be accepted, which I'm not able to give. > > I am curious on how this detail will evolve. > > Regards, > Markus I've given clear enough instructions what to do with the commits. This is the point where I stop caring about this mail thread. Thank you. /Jarkko From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarkko Sakkinen Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 12:16:49 +0000 Subject: Re: char/tpm: Improve a size determination in nine functions Message-Id: <20171019121649.cl3ppzem2scdxthm@linux.intel.com> List-Id: References: <1508244757.4234.60.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1508253453.4234.81.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <9689f036-ba9f-d23b-cf89-c289bc308771@users.sourceforge.net> <20171018145735.lpzwakatsty7emlw@linux.intel.com> <351cf78a-14f6-c6e7-2902-048e7dc57a14@users.sourceforge.net> <20171018155946.e7ga7jyex6eia252@linux.intel.com> <55d76224-3019-6614-70ce-ba260bbcd54f@users.sourceforge.net> <20171018171858.3lcfr2kcp53fngwv@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: SF Markus Elfring Cc: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Mimi Zohar , Julia Lawall , Alexander Steffen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Andy Shevchenko , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Corentin Labbe , Jason Gunthorpe , Jerry Snitselaar , Kenneth Goldman , Michael Ellerman , Nayna Jain , Paul Mackerras , Peter =?iso-8859-1?Q?H=FCwe?= , Stefan Berger On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 07:48:06PM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > For 1/4 and 2/4: explain why the message can be omitted. > > Why did you not reply directly with this request for the update steps > with the subject “Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation > in tpm_…()”? > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10009405/ > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10009415/ > > I find that there can be difficulty to show an appropriate information > source for the reasonable explanation of this change pattern. > > > > Remove sentence about Coccinelle. > > I got the impression that there is a bit of value in such > a kind of attribution. > > > > That's all. > > I assume that there might be also some communication challenges involved. > > > > 3/4: definitive NAK, too much noise compared to value. > > I tried to reduce deviations from the Linux coding style again. > You do not like such an attempt for this software area so far. > > > > 4/4: this a good commit message. > > Why did you not reply directly with this feedback for the update step > “[PATCH 4/4] char/tpm: Less checks in tpm_ibmvtpm_probe() after error detection”? > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10009429/ > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/<09a2c3a1-1b10-507d-a866-258b570f6da1@users.sourceforge.net> > > > > Requires a Tested-by before can be accepted, which I'm not able to give. > > I am curious on how this detail will evolve. > > Regards, > Markus I've given clear enough instructions what to do with the commits. This is the point where I stop caring about this mail thread. Thank you. /Jarkko From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:1914 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751320AbdJSMQ4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Oct 2017 08:16:56 -0400 Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 15:16:49 +0300 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: SF Markus Elfring Cc: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Mimi Zohar , Julia Lawall , Alexander Steffen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Andy Shevchenko , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Corentin Labbe , Jason Gunthorpe , Jerry Snitselaar , Kenneth Goldman , Michael Ellerman , Nayna Jain , Paul Mackerras , Peter =?iso-8859-1?Q?H=FCwe?= , Stefan Berger Subject: Re: char/tpm: Improve a size determination in nine functions Message-ID: <20171019121649.cl3ppzem2scdxthm@linux.intel.com> References: <1508244757.4234.60.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1508253453.4234.81.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <9689f036-ba9f-d23b-cf89-c289bc308771@users.sourceforge.net> <20171018145735.lpzwakatsty7emlw@linux.intel.com> <351cf78a-14f6-c6e7-2902-048e7dc57a14@users.sourceforge.net> <20171018155946.e7ga7jyex6eia252@linux.intel.com> <55d76224-3019-6614-70ce-ba260bbcd54f@users.sourceforge.net> <20171018171858.3lcfr2kcp53fngwv@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 07:48:06PM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > For 1/4 and 2/4: explain why the message can be omitted. > > Why did you not reply directly with this request for the update steps > with the subject "Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation > in tpm_...()"? > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10009405/ > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10009415/ > > I find that there can be difficulty to show an appropriate information > source for the reasonable explanation of this change pattern. > > > > Remove sentence about Coccinelle. > > I got the impression that there is a bit of value in such > a kind of attribution. > > > > That's all. > > I assume that there might be also some communication challenges involved. > > > > 3/4: definitive NAK, too much noise compared to value. > > I tried to reduce deviations from the Linux coding style again. > You do not like such an attempt for this software area so far. > > > > 4/4: this a good commit message. > > Why did you not reply directly with this feedback for the update step > "[PATCH 4/4] char/tpm: Less checks in tpm_ibmvtpm_probe() after error detection"? > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10009429/ > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/<09a2c3a1-1b10-507d-a866-258b570f6da1@users.sourceforge.net> > > > > Requires a Tested-by before can be accepted, which I'm not able to give. > > I am curious on how this detail will evolve. > > Regards, > Markus I've given clear enough instructions what to do with the commits. This is the point where I stop caring about this mail thread. Thank you. /Jarkko