On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 09:22:39AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > On 2023/02/09 0:07, Alan Stern wrote: > > I'm happy to have people test this patch, but I do not want anybody > > think that it is ready to be merged into the kernel. > > People (and build/test bots) won't test changes that are not proposed as > a formal patch with Signed-off-by: tag. As far as I am aware, bot is not > testing plain diff. People _do_ test changes without a Signed-off-by: tag. This happens with my patches all the time; I don't put Signed-off-by: on a patch until I think it is ready to be merged. If you search through the email archives, you'll find examples where people deliberately put a "Not-yet-signed-off-by:" tag on a suggested patch. Syzbot also tests patches without a Signed-off-by: tag. Here's a recent example: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-usb/Y9wh8dGK6oHSjJQl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > What's the point of adding a new function that just calls the old > > function? Why not simply rename the old function? > > This makes the patch smaller and easier to apply the change. Of course, How does it make the patch easier to apply? With either the original version or yours, you apply the patch by doing patch -p1 <patchfile (or a similar git command). Same command, same amount of difficulty for both patches. > I can update the patch if lockdep developers prefer rename over add. > What I worry is that lockdep developers do not permit static_obj() being > used by non-lockdep code. I worry about that too, and I hoped that Peter Z. would comment on it. But if they don't want the function to be exported, they ought to be able to suggest an alternative. Alan Stern
