From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from ny.mirrors.kernel.org (ny.mirrors.kernel.org [IPv6:2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA4AF1F44D for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 21:51:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=sasl header.b=BiqKtArC; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from smtp.subspace.kernel.org (wormhole.subspace.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ny.mirrors.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 084D61C350EE for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 21:51:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9370113D89F; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 21:51:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="BiqKtArC" Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (pb-smtp1.pobox.com [64.147.108.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57FC63C26 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 21:51:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.70 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1711489873; cv=none; b=cvfWCW5TZxa+HsqNz0g0fcovPl5dzXy/ruTtdfTeHR7bb+wD3cCsxfDRlNzM3wgwinMmtuvNEhiXrVl/e27bMDUElyIKrj1vUcGV1zgI0QUkWBJGhCdLv0Kcnt/AzZMbCQ4nfkceR1B0n0LBnBJjEVTvrI0jc2nIpDiwFHy9FKg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1711489873; c=relaxed/simple; bh=lAnukgmXA581HDzqxqZAU6H0Dh4Yfu0+Z61DBWkNl60=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=OoPBmSdbco/5oj29q60WEHH4pq12y7nepeNcXxWRl2xurQJ3Iwd95WExulxPbuepC/vfMst6IXRSsffMn3aM+t/vW+0dGlzZz1xEkM5drZ8Hr7y8OFiRzlmdK8YU4pLAoVXrGOu/72CwC6x0yw12dH8BP95veg4YxbbdBt9NM5c= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=BiqKtArC; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.70 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E70C1DA66A; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 17:51:04 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=lAnukgmXA581HDzqxqZAU6H0Dh4Yfu0+Z61DBW kNl60=; b=BiqKtArC/SB4mJPTdUufEWiASvD1F85/8E9GePgjoWHtmP3OSI2Xz9 UmQNASg6s9q1LT2K5cX+v4UNqpnjNtA+9CY50UEqiZe0SKz0+QXz6YSu3p6yESvx 2TBhEXD31WwkfU2rNvM9UAzJ4dpaAgsv5aCAGzWD+pEqCGcMLf6w4= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BB001DA669; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 17:51:04 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.139.61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 725C51DA668; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 17:51:02 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Josh Steadmon Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] fuzz: build fuzzers by default on Linux In-Reply-To: (Josh Steadmon's message of "Tue, 5 Mar 2024 13:11:58 -0800") References: Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 14:51:01 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: F0686582-EBBA-11EE-B307-78DCEB2EC81B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Josh Steadmon writes: > Increase our protection against fuzzer bit-rot by making sure we can > link the fuzz test executables on Linux. Patch 1 is a small CI config > improvement to fix compiler feature detection. Patch 2 is the Makefile / > config.mak.uname change to add the executables to `make all` on Linux. This has seen a handful of review comments but they haven't been responded nor resulted in a new round. Can we wrap this up anytime soon? We would expect a review comment to be at least responded to either rebut or admit the issues raised. It may be that a reviewer's point were missing the mark and the patches themselves were perfectly fine. But all other cases, even when the reviewer's comment were missing the mark, such a confusion may have been the result of the patch text or the proposed log message being unclear. Of course, the review comments may have been pointing out an actionable issue. They would hopefully lead to an improved version of the patches posted sometime later, so that we can conclude a topic and move ahead. Thanks.