On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 12:23 PM Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 11:56:53AM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote:
> >> Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >>
> >> > It looks like we wanted to print a maximum of BSSList_rid.ssidLen bytes
> >> > of the ssid, but we accidentally use "%*s" (width) instead of "%.*s"
> >> > (precision) so if the ssid doesn't have a NUL terminator this could lead
> >> > to an overflow.
> >> >
> >> > Fixes: e174961ca1a0 ("net: convert print_mac to %pM")
> >> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > ---
> >> > Static analsysis. Not tested.
> >>
> >> IMHO this part (after "---" line) is important information and should be
> >> part of commit log. I can fix that.
> >>
> >
> > In my experience most maintainers disagree (with varying degrees of
> > intensity).
>
> Heh, why would adding four words explaining the background of the patch
> to a commit log would be a bad thing? :) Well, I guess I just view
> things differently.
>
By the time a maintainer applies a patch and requests to merge it upstream
the patch should be tested. Right?
So how would a comment "Not tested" make any sense in an upstream
merged patch?
Thanks,
Amir.
