What did I miss from the SubmittingPatches page? Some constructive criticism please? Step 1 is skipped due to the fact I'm using git, patch is in proper form. Step 2, I described the patch. 3, it's one line, so it cannot be separated. Step 4, checkpatch.pl says it's good. The section in 5 confused me a little bit. 6, the patch is plain text. 7, it is under 300k (easily.) 8, doing it right now. 9, ok. 10, PATCH is included in the subject. 11, it is signed, says signed off at the bottom of the comment section. 12 I don't think is applicable to this? 13, not applicable again? 14, it is in canonical format, comment lines do not exceed 70 characters, it has a marker line, diff output etc. 15 confused me a little. 16 it is not a series of patches. If ANSI_CPRNG is not approved anymore for FIPS, the help section should be updated then. As for converting the DRBG booleans to choice, it is so that way users cannot have both options disabled, in the case they don't read the help for it. Alec On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Stephan Mueller <smueller@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 14. September 2016, 19:18:43 CEST schrieb NTU: > > Hi NTU, > >> Hello, >> >> I've never written a patch before to the official kernel mailing list >> (that I remember) so please forgive me if I didn't send this in >> properly. I've generated this using git format-patch HEAD~ --stdout &> >> kconfig_fix_for_fips.patch and have attached the file in this email, >> gathering as much as I could from the Documentation/SubmittingPatches >> page. > > Please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches >> >> Few more things, in the help option for CRYPTO_ANSI_CPRNG, it says it >> must be enabled if FIPS is selected, but in the dependencies for FIPS, >> if DRBG is selected, then CRYPTO_ANSI_CPRNG doesn't need to be >> enabled. Which one is true? > > The latter one. The X9.31 DRNG is not approved in FIPS mode any more. >> >> Secondly, in the help option for CRYPTO_DRBG_MENU, it says that one or >> more of the DRBG types must be selected. If this is indeed true, >> shouldn't the options within CRYPTO_DRBG_MENU be converted to >> choice/endchoice versus just booleans? One selection for >> CRYPTO_DRBG_HASH, another for CRYPTO_DRBG_CTR, and then a third option >> for both? Should I submit patches for these as well, >> feedback/thoughts? > > Not sure what you want to gain from it. All that the booleans do is to mark > which types of DRBG are to be compliled. The selector whether the DRBG is > compiled at all is CRYPTO_DRBG. > > Ciao > Stephan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
