Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] use wincap in format_proc_cpuinfo for user_shstk
On 2023-06-21 02:22, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Jun 20 22:50, Brian Inglis wrote:
On 2023-06-20 02:22, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Never mind, I fixed the remaining problems. Thanks for the patch,
I pushed it with slight modifications to the commit messages.
I'm a bit puzzled if my original mail
https://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin-patches/2023q2/012280.html
was really that unclear. Reiterating for the records:
- Commit messages should really try to explain why the patch is made and
what it's good for. In case of fixing a bug, the bug should be explained
and, ideally, explain why the patch is the better solution.
- If a patch fixes an older bug, it should say so and point out the
commit which introduced the bug using the Fixes: tag. The format
is
Fixes: <12-digit-SHA1> ("")
The parens and quoting chars are part of the format.
- Every patch should contain a Signed-off-by: to indicate that
you did the patch by yourself. That's easily automated by
using `git commit -s'.
- Other Tags like "Reported-by:" or "Tested-by:" are nice to have,
but not essential.
- For obvious reasons, the message text in your cover message won't make
it into the git repo. However, the commit messages in git should
reflect why the change was made, so a future interested reader has
a chance to understand why a change was made.
Not obvious to me unfortunately!
No worries, we're all learning while we're going along.
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
This is pretty well written, and it very nicely explains how to write
commit messages and use tagging.
Writing useful commit messages helps other people a lot to understand
why a patch was made, especially in tricky error cases (locking issues
are hard to follow, a good explanation is key).
If you ask me, there's no such thing as a too long commit message.
We're a small group so we're not supposed to follow the above document
to the core. However, things like "Fixes:" are really great, because
they connect a patch with a history of other patches and allow an aha
effect when checking on the referenced older patch. I can honestely
tell you that it already helped me a lot when working on the Linux
kernel. That's why I'd like to make this standard for our small project
here, too.
And one of the core expressions used in this doc is this:
Don't get discouraged - or impatient
:)
Cheers - never discouraged - a bit impatient because often frustrated -
sometimes confused - like Alice and the White Knight's song "Haddocks' Eyes" -
finding that the /footers/ are sometimes called /headers/ and other times /tags/
but actually named *trailers* finally gave more useful results where /fixes/ did
not! ;^>
--
Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada
La perfection est atteinte Perfection is achieved
non pas lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à ajouter not when there is no more to add
mais lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à retirer but when there is no more to cut
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] use wincap in format_proc_cpuinfo for user_shstk
On Jun 20 22:50, Brian Inglis wrote:
> On 2023-06-20 02:22, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Jun 19 12:15, Brian Inglis wrote:
> > > In test for for AMD/Intel Control flow Enforcement Technology user mode
> > > shadow stack support replace Windows version tests with test of wincap
> > > member addition has_user_shstk with Windows version dependent value
> > >
> > > Fixes: 41fdb869f998 fhandler/proc.cc(format_proc_cpuinfo): Add Linux 6.3
> > > cpuinfo
> > > Signed-off-by: Brian Inglis
> > >
> > > Brian Inglis (3):
> > >wincap.h: add wincap member has_user_shstk
> > >wincap.cc: set wincap member has_user_shstk true for 2004+
> > >fhandler/proc.cc: use wincap.has_user_shstk
> > >
> > > winsup/cygwin/fhandler/proc.cc| 8
> > > winsup/cygwin/local_includes/wincap.h | 2 ++
> > > winsup/cygwin/wincap.cc | 10 ++
> > > 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > Never mind, I fixed the remaining problems. Thanks for the patch,
> > I pushed it with slight modifications to the commit messages.
> >
> > I'm a bit puzzled if my original mail
> > https://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin-patches/2023q2/012280.html
> > was really that unclear. Reiterating for the records:
> >
> > - Commit messages should really try to explain why the patch is made and
> >what it's good for. In case of fixing a bug, the bug should be explained
> >and, ideally, explain why the patch is the better solution.
> >
> > - If a patch fixes an older bug, it should say so and point out the
> >commit which introduced the bug using the Fixes: tag. The format
> >is
> > Fixes: <12-digit-SHA1> ("")
> >
> >The parens and quoting chars are part of the format.
> >
> > - Every patch should contain a Signed-off-by: to indicate that
> >you did the patch by yourself. That's easily automated by
> >using `git commit -s'.
> >
> > - Other Tags like "Reported-by:" or "Tested-by:" are nice to have,
> >but not essential.
>
> > > - For obvious reasons, the message text in your cover message won't make
> > > it into the git repo. However, the commit messages in git should
> > > reflect why the change was made, so a future interested reader has
> > > a chance to understand why a change was made.
>
> Not obvious to me unfortunately!
No worries, we're all learning while we're going along.
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
This is pretty well written, and it very nicely explains how to write
commit messages and use tagging.
Writing useful commit messages helps other people a lot to understand
why a patch was made, especially in tricky error cases (locking issues
are hard to follow, a good explanation is key).
If you ask me, there's no such thing as a too long commit message.
We're a small group so we're not supposed to follow the above document
to the core. However, things like "Fixes:" are really great, because
they connect a patch with a history of other patches and allow an aha
effect when checking on the referenced older patch. I can honestely
tell you that it already helped me a lot when working on the Linux
kernel. That's why I'd like to make this standard for our small project
here, too.
And one of the core expressions used in this doc is this:
Don't get discouraged - or impatient
:)
Corinna
Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] use wincap in format_proc_cpuinfo for user_shstk
On 2023-06-20 02:22, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Jun 19 12:15, Brian Inglis wrote:
In test for for AMD/Intel Control flow Enforcement Technology user mode
shadow stack support replace Windows version tests with test of wincap
member addition has_user_shstk with Windows version dependent value
Fixes: 41fdb869f998 fhandler/proc.cc(format_proc_cpuinfo): Add Linux 6.3 cpuinfo
Signed-off-by: Brian Inglis
Brian Inglis (3):
wincap.h: add wincap member has_user_shstk
wincap.cc: set wincap member has_user_shstk true for 2004+
fhandler/proc.cc: use wincap.has_user_shstk
winsup/cygwin/fhandler/proc.cc| 8
winsup/cygwin/local_includes/wincap.h | 2 ++
winsup/cygwin/wincap.cc | 10 ++
3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Never mind, I fixed the remaining problems. Thanks for the patch,
I pushed it with slight modifications to the commit messages.
I'm a bit puzzled if my original mail
https://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin-patches/2023q2/012280.html
was really that unclear. Reiterating for the records:
- Commit messages should really try to explain why the patch is made and
what it's good for. In case of fixing a bug, the bug should be explained
and, ideally, explain why the patch is the better solution.
- If a patch fixes an older bug, it should say so and point out the
commit which introduced the bug using the Fixes: tag. The format
is
Fixes: <12-digit-SHA1> ("")
The parens and quoting chars are part of the format.
- Every patch should contain a Signed-off-by: to indicate that
you did the patch by yourself. That's easily automated by
using `git commit -s'.
- Other Tags like "Reported-by:" or "Tested-by:" are nice to have,
but not essential.
- For obvious reasons, the message text in your cover message won't make
it into the git repo. However, the commit messages in git should
reflect why the change was made, so a future interested reader has
a chance to understand why a change was made.
Not obvious to me unfortunately!
- As I already mentioned a couple of times on this list (but not
lately), it would be great if you could always add a "Signed-off-by:"
line.
I added that to my config.
- Also, given this patch fixes an earlier patch, it should contain
a line
Fixes: <12-digit-SHA1> ("commit headline")
ASSUME NOTHING (as we used to write in masm) about me, git, background info, or
conventions: man page or link refs please?
I personally used CVS then Hg, and needed BK for another project.
I only use git seriously for this project, as most businesses supported at best
CVS, most projects relied on backups of network shares, and saw little value in
source control, even in software cos; others were anal about it, requiring
diffs, but did not trust developers (maybe just contractors) with access to
their secure vaults!
[It made for interesting chats, some after I was gone, when their test builds
were still showing bugs I had fixed, tested, and submitted source changes for
weeks earlier!]
After trying to earlier track down useful docs I just managed to find:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
which presumably is the background I need?
Some stuff is also mentioned in:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/tree/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
which may have a more explanatory and practical focus.
--
Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada
La perfection est atteinte Perfection is achieved
non pas lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à ajouter not when there is no more to add
mais lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à retirer but when there is no more to cut
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] use wincap in format_proc_cpuinfo for user_shstk
On Jun 19 12:15, Brian Inglis wrote:
> In test for for AMD/Intel Control flow Enforcement Technology user mode
> shadow stack support replace Windows version tests with test of wincap
> member addition has_user_shstk with Windows version dependent value
>
> Fixes: 41fdb869f998 fhandler/proc.cc(format_proc_cpuinfo): Add Linux 6.3
> cpuinfo
> Signed-off-by: Brian Inglis
>
> Brian Inglis (3):
> wincap.h: add wincap member has_user_shstk
> wincap.cc: set wincap member has_user_shstk true for 2004+
> fhandler/proc.cc: use wincap.has_user_shstk
>
> winsup/cygwin/fhandler/proc.cc| 8
> winsup/cygwin/local_includes/wincap.h | 2 ++
> winsup/cygwin/wincap.cc | 10 ++
> 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Never mind, I fixed the remaining problems. Thanks for the patch,
I pushed it with slight modifications to the commit messages.
I'm a bit puzzled if my original mail
https://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin-patches/2023q2/012280.html
was really that unclear. Reiterating for the records:
- Commit messages should really try to explain why the patch is made and
what it's good for. In case of fixing a bug, the bug should be explained
and, ideally, explain why the patch is the better solution.
- If a patch fixes an older bug, it should say so and point out the
commit which introduced the bug using the Fixes: tag. The format
is
Fixes: <12-digit-SHA1> ("")
The parens and quoting chars are part of the format.
- Every patch should contain a Signed-off-by: to indicate that
you did the patch by yourself. That's easily automated by
using `git commit -s'.
- Other Tags like "Reported-by:" or "Tested-by:" are nice to have,
but not essential.
Thanks,
Corinna
