On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 04:54, Roberts, William C wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: linus...@gmail.com [mailto:linus...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Linus > > Torvalds > > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 4:17 PM > > To: Tobin C. Harding <m...@tobin.cc> > > Cc: kernel-harden...@lists.openwall.com; KVM list <k...@vger.kernel.org>; > > Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; Kees Cook > > <keesc...@chromium.org>; Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com>; Tycho > > Andersen <ty...@docker.com>; Roberts, William C > > <william.c.robe...@intel.com>; Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org>; Jordan Glover > > <golden_mille...@protonmail.ch>; Greg KH <gre...@linuxfoundation.org>; > > Petr Mladek <pmla...@suse.com>; Joe Perches <j...@perches.com>; Ian > > Campbell <i...@hellion.org.uk>; Sergey Senozhatsky > > <sergey.senozhat...@gmail.com>; Catalin Marinas <catalin.mari...@arm.com>; > > Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com>; Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org>; > > Chris Fries <cfr...@google.com>; Dave Weinstein <olo...@google.com>; Daniel > > Micay <danielmi...@gmail.com>; Djalal Harouni <tix...@gmail.com> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] add %pX specifier > > > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Tobin C. Harding <m...@tobin.cc> 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.
