On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 08:14:09AM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 08:41:54PM +0200, Alexander A. Klimov wrote: > > > > > > Am 08.07.20 um 12:39 schrieb Greg KH: > > > On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 11:55:00AM +0200, Alexander A. Klimov wrote: > > > > Rationale: > > > > Reduces attack surface on kernel devs opening the links for MITM > > > > as HTTPS traffic is much harder to manipulate. > > > > > > > > Deterministic algorithm: > > > > For each file: > > > > If not .svg: > > > > For each line: > > > > If doesn't contain `\bxmlns\b`: > > > > For each link, `\bhttp://[^# \t\r\n]*(?:\w|/)`: > > > > If neither `\bgnu\.org/license`, nor `\bmozilla\.org/MPL\b`: > > > > If both the HTTP and HTTPS versions > > > > return 200 OK and serve the same content: > > > > Replace HTTP with HTTPS. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alexander A. Klimov <grandmas...@al2klimov.de> > > > > > > Your subject lines are very odd compared to all patches for this > > > subsystem, as well as all other kernel subsystems. Any reason you are > > > doing it this way and not the normal and standard method of: > > > USB: storage: replace http links with https > > > > > > That would look more uniform as well as not shout at anyone.
I would agree. The OpenRISC patch for this series says: "OPENRISC ARCHITECTURE:..." Here it would just be "openrisc:..." I think fixing the whole series is needed. Greg is not the only on complaining. Ideally, I think, it would be good to have this sent out as a series i.e [PATCH 3/55] rather than individual patches so this could be discussed as a whole. -Stafford > > > thanks, > > > > > > greg k-h > > > > > Hi, > > > > I'm very sorry. > > > > As Torvalds has merged 93431e0607e5 and many of you devs (including big > > maintainers like David Miller) just applied this stuff, I assumed that's OK. > > > > And now I've rolled out tens of patches via shell loop... *sigh* > > > > As this is the third (I think) change request like this, I assume this rule > > applies to all subsystems – right? > > Yes, you should try to emulate what the subsystem does, look at other > patches for the same files, but the format I suggested is almost always > the correct one. If not, I'm sure maintainers will be glad to tell you > otherwise :)
