From: Timgrau <timo.gr@hotmail.de>

Just a grammar fix in lib/Kconfig.debug, under the config option RUST_BUILD_ASSERT_ALLOW.

Signed-off-by: Timgrau <timo.gr@hotmail.de>
Suggested-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
Link: https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/issues/1006#issue-1696318406
Closes: https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/issues/1006#issue-1696318406
---
 lib/Kconfig.debug | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug
index ce51d4dc6803..a56b9b368e78 100644
--- a/lib/Kconfig.debug
+++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug
@@ -2899,7 +2899,7 @@ config RUST_BUILD_ASSERT_ALLOW
 	bool "Allow unoptimized build-time assertions"
 	depends on RUST
 	help
-	  Controls how are `build_error!` and `build_assert!` handled during build.
+	  Controls how `build_error!` and `build_assert!` are handled during build.
 
 	  If calls to them exist in the binary, it may indicate a violated invariant
 	  or that the optimizer failed to verify the invariant during compilation.
-- 
2.40.1

On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 6:12 PM <timo.gr@hotmail.de> wrote:
>
> From: Timgrau <timo.gr@hotmail.de>
>
> Just a grammar fix in lib/Kconfig.debug, under the config option RUST_BUILD_ASSERT_ALLOW.
>
> Signed-off-by: Timgrau <timo.gr@hotmail.de>
> Suggested-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
> Link: https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/issues/1006#issue-1696318406
> Closes: https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/issues/1006#issue-1696318406

Thanks for the patch!

A few notes:

  - From a quick look, I think "Timgrau" is not a known identity to
the kernel, right? (e.g. I couldn't find any other commit on that
name). Assuming I am not mistaken, could you please instead your real
name?

  - When I wrote the report, I wrongly suggested `Suggested-by` +
`Link` because I didn't consider this a "bug". But you are probably
right that should be considered a fix anyway, so instead we should use
`Reported-by` and `Closes`. So could you please remove the `Link` and
change the `Suggested` to `Reported`?

  - Also, since this is now a fix, could you please also add the `Fixes:` tag?

  - For the `Closes`, you can remove the URL fragment part, i.e.
`#issue-1696318406`, since it is anyway the first comment.

If you could change those bits and send a v2, that would be great. Thanks!

Cheers,
Miguel

Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 6:12 PM <timo.gr@hotmail.de> wrote:
>>
>> From: Timgrau <timo.gr@hotmail.de>
>>
>> Just a grammar fix in lib/Kconfig.debug, under the config option RUST_BUILD_ASSERT_ALLOW.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Timgrau <timo.gr@hotmail.de>
>> Suggested-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
>> Link: https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/issues/1006#issue-1696318406
>> Closes: https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/issues/1006#issue-1696318406
>
> Thanks for the patch!
>
> A few notes:
>
>   - From a quick look, I think "Timgrau" is not a known identity to
> the kernel, right? (e.g. I couldn't find any other commit on that
> name). Assuming I am not mistaken, could you please instead your real
> name?

Right, I already thought so. My bad, will change it.
>
>   - When I wrote the report, I wrongly suggested `Suggested-by` +
> `Link` because I didn't consider this a "bug". But you are probably
> right that should be considered a fix anyway, so instead we should use
> `Reported-by` and `Closes`. So could you please remove the `Link` and
> change the `Suggested` to `Reported`?

Ahh ok, i also dont think you can call it a "bug". Is it not possible to
simply remove the `Closes:` tag from the patch and not categorize the
whole thing as a "bug"?
>
>   - Also, since this is now a fix, could you please also add the `Fixes:` tag?
>
>   - For the `Closes`, you can remove the URL fragment part, i.e.
> `#issue-1696318406`, since it is anyway the first comment.

In that case, these two points/notes above are not needet right?
>
> If you could change those bits and send a v2, that would be great. Thanks!
>
> Cheers,
> Miguel

On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 12:05 PM Timo Grautstück <timo.gr@hotmail.de> wrote:
>
> Ahh ok, i also dont think you can call it a "bug". Is it not possible to
> simply remove the `Closes:` tag from the patch and not categorize the
> whole thing as a "bug"?

I think either way is fine. Since we have an issue in the tracker and
it is a fix, even if trivial, let's go with something like:

    Reported-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
    Closes: https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/issues/1006
    Fixes: <hash> ("<description>")
    Signed-off-by: <fixed real name> <timo.gr@hotmail.de>

For the formatting of the `Fixes:` tag, I recommend using the git
`--pretty=` config shown in
https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html.

Cheers,
Miguel

Just a grammar fix in lib/Kconfig.debug, under the config option RUST_BUILD_ASSERT_ALLOW.

Reported-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
Closes: https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/issues/1006
Fixes: ecaa6ddff2fd ("rust: add `build_error` crate")
Signed-off-by: Timo Grautstück <timo.grautsautstueck@web.de>
---
 lib/Kconfig.debug | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug
index 7315f643817a..7312ae7c3cc5 100644
--- a/lib/Kconfig.debug
+++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug
@@ -3060,7 +3060,7 @@ config RUST_BUILD_ASSERT_ALLOW
 	bool "Allow unoptimized build-time assertions"
 	depends on RUST
 	help
-	  Controls how are `build_error!` and `build_assert!` handled during build.
+	  Controls how `build_error!` and `build_assert!` are handled during the build.

 	  If calls to them exist in the binary, it may indicate a violated invariant
 	  or that the optimizer failed to verify the invariant during compilation.
--
2.44.0

On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 10:56 AM Timo Grautstück <timo.grautstueck@web.de> wrote:
>
> Signed-off-by: Timo Grautstück <timo.grautsautstueck@web.de>

This email is different than the `From:` one --
`scripts/checkpatch.pl` reports it, please double-check with the
script.

Thanks!

Cheers,
Miguel

From: Timo Grautstueck <timo.grautstueck@web.de>

Just a grammar fix in lib/Kconfig.debug, under the config option
RUST_BUILD_ASSERT_ALLOW.

Reported-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
Closes: https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/issues/1006
Fixes: ecaa6ddff2fd ("rust: add `build_error` crate")
Signed-off-by: Timo Grautstueck <timo.grautstueck@web.de>
---
 lib/Kconfig.debug | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug
index 7315f643817a..7312ae7c3cc5 100644
--- a/lib/Kconfig.debug
+++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug
@@ -3060,7 +3060,7 @@ config RUST_BUILD_ASSERT_ALLOW
 	bool "Allow unoptimized build-time assertions"
 	depends on RUST
 	help
-	  Controls how are `build_error!` and `build_assert!` handled during build.
+	  Controls how `build_error!` and `build_assert!` are handled during the build.

 	  If calls to them exist in the binary, it may indicate a violated invariant
 	  or that the optimizer failed to verify the invariant during compilation.
--
2.44.0

On Sun, Oct 6, 2024 at 4:03 PM Timo Grautstück <timo.grautstueck@web.de> wrote:
>
> From: Timo Grautstueck <timo.grautstueck@web.de>
>
> Just a grammar fix in lib/Kconfig.debug, under the config option
> RUST_BUILD_ASSERT_ALLOW.
>
> Reported-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
> Closes: https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/issues/1006
> Fixes: ecaa6ddff2fd ("rust: add `build_error` crate")
> Signed-off-by: Timo Grautstueck <timo.grautstueck@web.de>

Applied to `rust-fixes` -- thanks!

(If we don't get any other fixes, I may end up applying this to
`rust-next`, since it is trivial)

Cheers,
Miguel