On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 10:43:10AM -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 6:22 AM Joel Granados <joel.granados@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 03:42:39PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 04:55:58PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > > > > You could have static const within functions too. You get the rodata > > > > protection and function local scope, best of both worlds? > > > > > > timer_active is on the stack, so it can't be static const. > > > > > > Does this really need to be cc'd to such a wide distribution list? > > That is a very good question. I removed 160 people from the original > > e-mail and left the ones that where previously involved with this patch > > and left all the lists for good measure. But it seems I can reduce it > > even more. > > > > How about this: For these treewide efforts I just leave the people that > > are/were involved in the series and add two lists: linux-kernel and > > linux-hardening. > > > > Unless someone screams, I'll try this out on my next treewide. > > I'm not screaming about it :) but anything that touches the LSM, I'll consider it as a scream :) So I'll keep my previous approach of leaving only personal mails that are involved, but leaving all the lists that b4 suggests. > SELinux, or audit code (or matches the regex in MAINTAINERS) I would > prefer to see on the associated mailing list. General comment sent to the void: It is tricky to know exactly who wants to be informed of all this and who thinks its useless. I think that if we want more focus it should come from automated tools like b4. Maybe some string in MAINTAINERS stating that the list should not be used in cases of tree-wide commits? Best -- Joel Granados
