Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] bug: Move WARN_ON() "cut here" into exception handler

[Christophe Leroy]

Le 24/08/2019 Ã 21:08, Kees Cook a ÃcritÂ:

Euh ... only received this mail yesterday. Same for the other answer.


> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 04:26:59PM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> > Le 23/08/2019 Ã 00:56, Andrew Morton a ÃcritÂ:
> > > On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 09:47:55 -0700 Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Reply-To: 20190819234111.9019-8-keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > Really?
> >
> > That seems correct, that's the "[PATCH 7/7] bug: Move WARN_ON() "cut here"
> > into exception handler" from the series at
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/8/19/1155
> >
> >
> > > > Subject: [PATCH v2 7/7] bug: Move WARN_ON() "cut here" into exception handler
> > >
> > > It's strange to receive a standalone [7/7] patch.
> >
> > Iaw the Reply_To, I understand it as an update of the 7th patch of the
> > series.
>
> Was trying to avoid the churn of resending the identical 1-6 patches
> (which are all just refactoring to make 7/7 not a mess).

Yes but Reply-To: means the address we have to use to answer to this email.

I think you wanted to use In-reply-to:

> I can resend the whole series, if that's preferred.

I guess not.

> > > > Reported-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@xxxxxx>
> > > > Fixes: Fixes: 6b15f678fb7d ("include/asm-generic/bug.h: fix "cut here" for WARN_ON for __WARN_TAINT architectures")
> > >
> > > I'm seeing double.
>
> Tracking down all these combinations has been tricky, which is why I did
> the patch 1-6 refactoring: it makes the call hierarchy much easier to
> examine (IMO).

But still, Andrew is seing double ... And me as well :)

Fixes: Fixes:

Christophe

> -Kees