Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 29 Jul 2020 19:38:37 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To:     Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Fangrui Song <maskray@google.com>,
        Dmitry Golovin <dima@golovin.in>,
        clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
        Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        "H . J . Lu" <hjl@sourceware.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH-next v5 0/7] x86/boot: Remove run-time relocations from
 compressed kernel
Message-ID: <202007291937.061A4FE76@keescook>
References: <CAKwvOdnTbatx8VB-rJSzyFPwfYnkMYK28yLBn1G+hUu8dyfYRA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200717201801.3661843-1-nivedita@alum.mit.edu>
 <202007291502.18DC4C0F@keescook>
 <20200729222341.GA684483@rani.riverdale.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200729222341.GA684483@rani.riverdale.lan>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 06:23:41PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 03:04:43PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 04:17:54PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> > > Same as v5 previously posted, but rebased onto next-20200717.
> > > 
> > > v5: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200715004133.1430068-1-nivedita@alum.mit.edu/
> > 
> > BTW, some bits of feedback on process:
> > 
> > - please don't re-use version numbers, this is confusing :)
> 
> This was a special case as there were no actual changes in this version.

It ended up missing some review tags, etc.

> > - please fix whatever is happening with the "In-Reply-To:" headers, the
> >   threading is extremely hard to understand (each patch isn't a reply to
> >   the cover letter, and everything is a reply to a single earlier email)
> 
> I think this is because I'm passing --in-reply-to to format-patch.
> Seems like I should specify that in send-email instead, hopefully that
> will fix the threading.

Ah yes, I think would do it -- it overrides the normal threading that
send-email does. Usually --in-reply-to is for a single email.

Thanks for checking!

-- 
Kees Cook