On 2/17/2017 4:34 PM, Wiles, Keith wrote: > >> On Feb 17, 2017, at 10:21 AM, Yigit, Ferruh <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 2/17/2017 3:43 PM, Keith Wiles wrote: >>> Calling strncpy with a maximum size argument of 16 bytes on destination >>> array "ifr.ifr_ifrn.ifrn_name" of size 16 bytes might leave the >>> destination string unterminated. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Keith Wiles <[email protected]> >> >> net/tap: fix possibly unterminated string >> >> Coverity issue: 1407499 >> Fixes: 6b38b2725cdb ("net/tap: fix multi-queue support") >> Cc: [email protected] >> >> Applied to dpdk-next-net/master, thanks. >> >> >> (Updates: >> - patch title: >> It is preferred to mention from problem solved instead of the tool that >> found it. >> >> - Added coverity tag: >> This helps to trace coverity issues, defined syntax is: >> >> Coverity issue: xxx >> Fixes: yyyy >> >> - Added Cc: tag for stable tree: >> In case stable tree wants get this patch, to make patch visible. > > I agree this is good, but to many rules not listed or checked in the tools. > We need a much easier method to submit patches in the format that is defined > and checked. > > Today it is way to hard to know every little internal format for every type > of patch. We need to fix this problem to make it easier to submit patches to > dpdk.org, we can not continue like this as we grow it will become way to much > work for the repo maintainers and the submitter.
That is why I am documenting what has been changed and the reasoning in the mail, so I am hoping this is helping others that following the mail list sync about rules. Also gives a discussion medium about rules.. > > Using a better tool then submitting via email seems like a better solution as > long as we can add the given checks to the tool. Using a tools should also > reduce the email traffic for most everyone, but we need to allow anyone to > ask for all of the commits to the repo or pull requests like patches. > > How can we handle these types of issues in the future? > >> ) > > Regards, > Keith >
