Re: [PATCH v6 00/13] Add support for NIST P521 to ecdsa

[Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>]

On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 08:22:51PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Tue Mar 19, 2024 at 12:42 AM EET, Stefan Berger wrote:
> > On 3/18/24 14:48, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 02:36:05PM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
> > >> This series adds support for the NIST P521 curve to the ecdsa module
> > >> to enable signature verification with it.
> > > 
> > > v6 of this series is still
> > > 
> > > Tested-by: Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>
> >
> > Thanks.
> 
> This has been discussed before in LKML but generally tested-by for
> series does not have semantical meaning.

I believe that notion is outdated.

It seems to be becoming the norm that maintainers apply patches with
"b4 am --apply-cover-trailers", which automatically picks up Acked-by,
Reviewed-by, Tested-by and other tags sent in-reply-to the cover letter
and adds them to all patches in the series.

Consequently, providing such tags in-reply-to the cover letter is not
unusual and nothing to object to.

If Herbert applies patches with "b4 am --apply-cover-trailers" or
"b4 shazam --apply-cover-trailers" (I don't know if he does),
it is completely irrelevant whether Stefan strips my Tested-by from
individual patches:  It will automatically be re-added when the
series gets applied.

I have only tested the collection of *all* patches in this series and
can thus only vouch for correct functioning of the *entire* series,
hence providing the Tested-by in-reply-to the cover letter is the only
thing that makes sense to me.

Either way, I don't think arguing over which patch to apply a Tested-by
to is a productive use of everyone's time.

Thanks,

Lukas