From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:61236 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2388823AbfKGNzy (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Nov 2019 08:55:54 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098414.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id xA7DtZQm128185 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 08:55:53 -0500 Received: from e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.98]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2w4ke9kdrf-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 07 Nov 2019 08:55:50 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 13:54:58 -0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] s390/pkey: Use memdup_user() rather than duplicating its implementation References: <08422b7e-2071-ee52-049e-c3ac55bc67a9@web.de> <6137855bb4170c438c7436cbdb7dfd21639a8855.camel@perches.com> <833d7d5e-6ede-6bdd-a2cc-2da7f0b03908@de.ibm.com> <1b65bc81-f47a-eefa-f1f4-d5af6a1809c0@web.de> From: Christian Borntraeger Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 14:54:53 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1b65bc81-f47a-eefa-f1f4-d5af6a1809c0@web.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: <733b29df-207e-a165-ee80-46be8720c0c4@de.ibm.com> Sender: linux-s390-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Markus Elfring , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Joe Perches , Harald Freudenberger , Heiko Carstens , Ingo Franzki , Vasily Gorbik Cc: LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Kangjie Lu , Navid Emamdoost , Stephen McCamant On 07.11.19 14:45, Markus Elfring wrote: >>> Reuse existing functionality from memdup_user() instead of keeping >>> duplicate source code. >>> >>> Generated by: scripts/coccinelle/api/memdup_user.cocci >>> >>> Delete local variables which became unnecessary with this refactoring >>> in two function implementations. >>> >>> Fixes: f2bbc96e7cfad3891b7bf9bd3e566b9b7ab4553d ("s390/pkey: add CCA AES cipher key support") >> >> With that patch description, the Fixes tag is wrong...but (see below) > > I wonder about such a conclusion together with your subsequent feedback. Please try to read and understand what other people write. My point was that your patch description only talks about refactoring and avoiding code duplication. So you do not claim to have fixed anything. You claim to have refactored things to avoid code duplication. And no, refactoring is NOT a fix. That fact that you fix a bug was obviously just by accident. So you have not even noticed that your change was actually chaning the logical flow of the code. Now: When you change the patch description explaining what you fix, a Fixes tag is appropriate.