On 2023/02/09 11:26, Alan Stern wrote: > 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. That's a cultural difference. I know there are developers who use "Not-yet-signed-off-by:" tag. But I'm not subscribed to mailing lists which you are subscribed to. I'm subscribed to linux-security-module, but I feel that it is quite rare that developers post changes as plain diff without Signed-off-by: tag, for people prefer to see formal patches than plain diff. I can see that only David Howells was using Not-yet-signed-off-by: tag (like https://marc.info/?l=linux-security-module&m=130455572927447 ). But even with Not-yet-signed-off-by: tag, his patches are formal patches with description rather than plain diff. Unlike networking subsystem where patches sometimes get merged before people have time to review/test, developers in my subscribed mailing lists tend to propose v2, v3, v4... patches with "Signed-off-by:" tag instead of posting plain diff. > Syzbot also tests patches without a Signed-off-by: tag. Here's a recent > example: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-usb/Y9wh8dGK6oHSjJQl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ That's completely different. syzbot is designed to test plain diff via explict "#syz test:" directive. If "#syz test:" directive is not included, syzbot does not test your diff. Do you know any bot which automatically does testing plain diff? I don't know when bots (or automated systems) test changes, but my guess is that a formal patch with "Signed-off-by:" tag serves as the directive for bots to test changes. Maybe we want a directive (e.g. "Test-requested-by:" tag) which encourages/asks bots (or automated systems) to test patches but does not want patches to get merged into permanent git trees. >> 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. Then, at least we can start without "EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(lockdep_static_obj);" line, for drivers/base/core.c cannot be built as a module. Since there are already several locations which directly use e.g. _stext symbol, we would simply duplicate static_obj() into drivers/base/core.c if Peter does not want to make static_obj() visible to built-in code. Anyway, despite being posted as a formal patch, it seems that nobody was interested in manual testing. As far as I tried "#syz test" this patch against https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=9ef743bba3a17c756174 , syzbot kernel was able to boot. Therefore, I think it is OK to stay for a week whether this patch causes too frequent crashes to continue using linux-next.git . Please propose a formal patch to Peter with your "Signed-off-by:" tag...
