On Tue, 24 May 2022 at 13:41, Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, Haowen, > > On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 12:03 PM Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 11:06 AM Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, Haowen, > > > > > > On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 10:52 AM Haowen Bai <baihaowen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Sizeof a pointer-typed expression returns the size of the pointer, not > > > > that of the pointed data. > > > Your patch is correct, but the original patch hasn't been upstream, I don't > > > know how to handle it. > > I've squash your patch to the original one and add a Co-developed-by:, > > not sure it is the best solution. Thanks. > I was suggested that a "Suggested-by" is suitable. > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAAhV-H6k=xC-fDYnwsqSeoj7QPPn8RAcR+waQMa8yTs5J-XOSg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#t > Finding and fixing mistakes is the normal review process, and not every addressed comment needs to be reflected in the tags, even if the contributor sent it as a separate patch. Adding 'Suggested-by' to the entire patch falsely implies that the author of the bugfix suggested the entire work, which is not desirable either. In this case, the bugfix is a well-known anti-pattern which is not specific to the introduced code. I don't think this warrants a tag tbh.
