Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:7 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:7;
Message-ID: <76c4b967-1cb6-4f77-9402-f835b15adb10@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Tue, 5 Dec 2023 08:39:23 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] selftests: livepatch: Test livepatching a heavily
 called syscall
To:     mpdesouza@suse.com, Marcos Paulo de Souza <mpdesouza@suse.de>
Cc:     Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>,
        Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>,
        Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>,
        Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@redhat.com>,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
        live-patching@vger.kernel.org,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
References: <20231031-send-lp-kselftests-v3-0-2b1655c2605f@suse.com>
 <20231031-send-lp-kselftests-v3-3-2b1655c2605f@suse.com>
 <f9d82fa6-08d7-4ab6-badc-691987b37a82@linuxfoundation.org>
 <unpg4z7eig6qbudgulnr6sog65fq7s2dy4u2vp2dgkdrq5csdw@dltnxuw6kw5b>
 <8b95b96c-6aeb-4bf0-8ee9-2ba62330c672@linuxfoundation.org>
 <12a9ec1bc84dc6d4b461e5c780ba7d3c3aa91740.camel@suse.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From:   Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <12a9ec1bc84dc6d4b461e5c780ba7d3c3aa91740.camel@suse.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 12/5/23 05:52, mpdesouza@suse.com wrote:
> On Fri, 2023-12-01 at 16:38 +0000, Shuah Khan wrote:

> 0003-selftests-livepatch-Test-livepatching-a-heavily-call.patch has
> style problems, please review.
> 
> NOTE: If any of the errors are false positives, please report
>        them to the maintainer, see CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS.
> 
> I couldn't find any mention about "missing module name". Is your script
> showing more warnings than these ones? Can you please share your
> output?
> 
> I'll fix MAINTAINERS file but I'll wait until I understand what's
> missing in your checkpatch script to resend the patchset.
> 

Looks like it is coming a script - still my question stands on
whether or not you would need a module name for this module?

I am not too concerned about MAINTAINERS file warns.

I am assuming you will be sending a new version to address
Joe Lawrence's comments?

thanks,
-- Shuah