Hi Christophe, On 29. Apr 2025, at 13:58, Christophe Leroy wrote: > Le 29/04/2025 à 13:47, Ioana Ciornei a écrit: >> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 12:41:48PM +0200, Thorsten Blum wrote: >>> Both destination buffers are already zero-initialized, making strscpy() >>> sufficient for safely copying 'obj_type'. The additional NUL-padding >>> performed by strscpy_pad() is unnecessary. >>> >>> If the destination buffer has a fixed length, strscpy() automatically >>> determines its size using sizeof() when the argument is omitted. This >>> makes the explicit size arguments unnecessary. >>> >>> No functional changes intended. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Thorsten Blum <thorsten.b...@linux.dev> >> Reviewed-by: Ioana Ciornei <ioana.cior...@nxp.com> >> Christophe, could you also pick-up this patch when you have a chance? > > Sure I will take it when time comes, but again I'd expect an explanation > inside the patch (below the ---) for the resend. I now have this patch twice > in the list and don't know why, see > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/list/?series=&submitter=&state=&q=&archive=&delegate=61610
A "resend" is meant as a "ping" and the patch is always unmodified, at least that's my understanding of it. So there's no particular reason other than: "Did you see my patch? Let me send it again just to be sure you didn't miss it." From [1]: "Don’t add “RESEND” when you are submitting a modified version of your patch or patch series - “RESEND” only applies to resubmission of a patch or patch series which have not been modified in any way from the previous submission." The patches are identical - just pick one. Thanks, Thorsten [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#don-t-get-discouraged-or-impatient
