On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 04:54, Roberts, William C wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Linus > > Torvalds > > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 4:17 PM > > To: Tobin C. Harding <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected]; KVM list <[email protected]>; > > Linux Kernel Mailing List <[email protected]>; Kees Cook > > <[email protected]>; Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]>; Tycho > > Andersen <[email protected]>; Roberts, William C > > <[email protected]>; Tejun Heo <[email protected]>; Jordan Glover > > <[email protected]>; Greg KH <[email protected]>; > > Petr Mladek <[email protected]>; Joe Perches <[email protected]>; Ian > > Campbell <[email protected]>; Sergey Senozhatsky > > <[email protected]>; Catalin Marinas <[email protected]>; > > Will Deacon <[email protected]>; Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>; > > Chris Fries <[email protected]>; Dave Weinstein <[email protected]>; Daniel > > Micay <[email protected]>; Djalal Harouni <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] add %pX specifier > > > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Tobin C. Harding <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > This patch is a softer version of Linus' suggestion because it does > > > not change the behaviour of the %p specifier. I don't see the benefit > > > in making such a breaking change without addressing the issue of %x (and I > > don't the balls to right now). > > > > The thing is, this continues to have the exact same issue that %pK has > > - because it is opt-in, effectively nobody will actually use it. > > > > That's why I would suggest that if we do this way, we really change %p and > > %pa > > to use the hashed value, to convert *everybody*. And then people who have a > > good reason to actually expose the pointer have to do the extra work and opt > > out. > > Yes we cannot make this opt in or there is really no point in doing it. > %pK and mistakes > got us here to this point. I see there is multiple threads, this getting > really fun to follow.
The threading split is my fault. I have never worked on a patch series with this many comments. How could I have gone about things differently to prevent the thread separation? Should I have posted the second patch set as a reply to the first (I did not because it was not a version 2). Further splitting occurred because I botched the `git send-email` and sent only a cover-letter, this got some replies that lead to another single patch (again it was quite different and seemed not to be a version 2)? So we are left with three threads all discussing the same changes. Is there anything one can do to rectify this position now? thanks, Tobin.
