From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bmailout1.hostsharing.net (bmailout1.hostsharing.net [83.223.95.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9E33EA4; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 05:40:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=83.223.95.100 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1710913245; cv=none; b=cd0PtrE7kYphMCgoADdxwWBljwQs/r1oozmfFvVuYtE0bMt62hz9ItX02kYDX+ZKggN2sDHrJDnKofqEcFpWdGw/bOyfDB0Kp7eleqL4mIX7tisbxjjHM+0lEGCSnlqVqVoeRZYV5DJXeljLXO7g1JMx3q44B/eMZBWJi8O7mLQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1710913245; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Bfc7Wsju5l0WRaJyl54eJPl6pzsuIqPCIaOoxiZ/Aho=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=KmUybhhC7lWZH9V6bmZwx1iXsHY+gnvj3cxv5+o+pRWqcExDLV8PWw7Hf5PaQEFMTdmcZQJA0G+2dOuev0YWqFZoZ3bMj+A2GzeSNxtwVoZzQmzS1Cjj7wBbgyw52V5j8WjXIkF9kVUJu8E0kaQzRGUHu5PuGdjoOaqbta57fyI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=wunner.de; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=h08.hostsharing.net; arc=none smtp.client-ip=83.223.95.100 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=wunner.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=h08.hostsharing.net Received: from h08.hostsharing.net (h08.hostsharing.net [83.223.95.28]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "*.hostsharing.net", Issuer "RapidSSL TLS RSA CA G1" (verified OK)) by bmailout1.hostsharing.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA24B300002AA; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 06:40:33 +0100 (CET) Received: by h08.hostsharing.net (Postfix, from userid 100393) id C46FC44E6C; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 06:40:33 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 06:40:33 +0100 From: Lukas Wunner To: Jarkko Sakkinen Cc: Stefan Berger , Stefan Berger , keyrings@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, davem@davemloft.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, saulo.alessandre@tse.jus.br, bbhushan2@marvell.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/13] Add support for NIST P521 to ecdsa Message-ID: References: <20240312183618.1211745-1-stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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 > > > > 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