From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:46386 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751069AbdJRRyN (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 18 Oct 2017 13:54:13 -0400
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 10:54:12 -0700
From: Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@redhat.com>
To: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>,
        Alexander Steffen <Alexander.Steffen@infineon.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Corentin Labbe <clabbe.montjoie@gmail.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com>,
        Kenneth Goldman <kgold@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Nayna Jain <nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Peter =?iso-8859-1?Q?H=FCwe?= <PeterHuewe@gmx.de>,
        Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: char/tpm: Improve a size determination in nine functions
Message-ID: <20171018175412.mlj2yvyjmvmfdxzd@rhwork>
Reply-To: Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@redhat.com>
References: <1508244757.4234.60.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1710171456360.5035@hadrien>
 <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>
 <e9638486-7e59-1c5a-87ae-ca0f1fbbd021@users.sourceforge.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
In-Reply-To: <e9638486-7e59-1c5a-87ae-ca0f1fbbd021@users.sourceforge.net>
Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-integrity.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed Oct 18 17, 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.
>

Shouldn't this information source for the explanation be the
submitter? I'd hope they understand what it is they are submitting.

>
>> 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