Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | Aaron Tomlin <> | Date | Fri, 11 Feb 2022 13:51:35 +0000 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 07/13] module: Move extra signature support out of core code |
| |
On Thu 2022-02-10 13:01 +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote: > Why do patches 7 to 13 have a Reply-to: > 20220209170358.3266629-1-atomlin@redhat.com and not patches 1 to 6 ?
Christophe,
Please disregard this mishap. Unfortunately, at the time I hit the relay quota.
> > diff --git a/include/linux/module.h b/include/linux/module.h > > index fd6161d78127..aea0ffd94a41 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/module.h > > +++ b/include/linux/module.h > > @@ -863,6 +863,7 @@ static inline bool module_sig_ok(struct module *module) > > { > > return true; > > } > > +#define sig_enforce false > sig_enforce is used only in signing.c so it should be defined there > exclusively.
Agreed.
> And checkpatch is not happy: > > CHECK: Please use a blank line after function/struct/union/enum declarations > #27: FILE: include/linux/module.h:866: > } > +#define sig_enforce false
Ok.
Kind regards,
-- Aaron Tomlin
| |