On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 7:16 AM Mimi Zohar <zo...@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2025-09-16 at 18:03 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > > Acked-by: Kees Cook <k...@kernel.org> > > Reviewed-by: John Johansen <john.johhan...@canonical.com> > > Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <p...@paul-moore.com> > > For the first couple of iterations, the patch descriptions needed to be added > or > improved upon.
As was discussed in the first cover letter, and in the related reviews, the first iteration was simply a FYI primarily for the sake of Casey who was working on a patchset which has some overlap. > Some of the patch descriptions are still missing (e.g. 25, 27, > etc). Is this intentional because you feel it is redundant ... Yes. Take this particular patch as an example, the conversion to using the new initcall mechanism for Loadpin is perhaps one of the more trivial patches one might see in the kernel, the subject line of "loadpin: move initcalls to the LSM framework" is sufficient to document the patch as far as I'm concerned. > FYI, teaching newbies how to break up a patch set is not easy. This patch set > is nicely broken up and would be a good example. However, leaving out the > patch > description would be teaching the wrong thing. Documentation is a good and important part of the work we do, but redundant and/or excessive documentation simply for the sake of satisfying a checkbox is not a good thing IMO. -- paul-moore.com
