Re: [patch 1/6] Linux Kernel Markers - Architecture Independent Code

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...>
Cc: <akpm@...>, <linux-kernel@...>
Date: Thursday, September 6, 2007 - 7:00 pm

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:07:34 -0400 Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:


Documentation/SubmittingPatches recognizes Signed-off-by: and
Acked-by:.  Nothing about Reviewed-by.  Quote:

  Acked-by: is not as formal as Signed-off-by:.  It is a record that the acker
  has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance.

Reviewed-by: carries no such connotation or indication IMO.
Please use Acked-by if that's what these reviewers have done.






                           marker.



      given


                            has


                          make




You can't return -ENOENT here?


                                                  These



hm, so if the module is tainted, markers won't be applied to it?
That's OK IMO.  However, I tend to think that something that
modifies code on the fly (like kprobes or text edit) should set some
flag somewhere so that when the system crashes, we can know that
code was modified.  This could be done via taints flags or some other
mechanism.  Has this already been discussed?




wrong function name above.

  ...

---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [patch 1/6] Linux Kernel Markers - Architecture Independ..., Randy Dunlap, (Thu Sep 6, 7:00 pm)