lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 17:17:38 +0530 From: Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@...nel.org> To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> Cc: x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>, Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip] x86: apic/x2apic_cluster.c x86_cpu_to_logical_apicid should be static Hello Ingo, On Sun, 2009-04-12 at 12:51 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@...nel.org> wrote: > > > Impact: reduce kernel size a bit, avoid sparse warning > > > > Fixes sparse warning: > > arch/x86/kernel/apic/x2apic_cluster.c:13:1: warning: symbol 'per_cpu__x86_cpu_to_logical_apicid' was not declared. Should it be static? > > > > Signed-off-by: Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinderrajput@...il.com> > > --- > > arch/x86/kernel/apic/x2apic_cluster.c | 2 +- > > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > Applied, thanks. > > There is a not so small nit: > > > Impact: reduce kernel size a bit, avoid sparse warning > > > > Fixes sparse warning: > > the thing is, we dont 'fix', nor do we 'avoid' Sparse warnings! > > We _read_ them, _understand_ them, and then we act upon them, fixing > the problem they expose. > > Or, if there is no problem exposed, we annotate the code to fix the > Sparse false positive warning. > > Your changelog does not tell us anything whether you went through > that thought process. I had to double-check it and had to create > this information from scratch. > > Please take this as a last warning: you send lots of patches that > address various things mechanically, often without thinking through > the effects. They are expensive to maintain, because they cause > churn and because people often have to do more work accepting them > than you did creating them! > > You sent a hundred patches in two weeks and they are not applied yet > - and this is why: it is expensive to filter through them and if you > dont do it we can only do it by simply not taking them all that > easily. Taking them simply does not scale. > > And if you write a hundred patches in two weeks you _really_ have to > ask yourself whether your quality controls are strong enough before > emitting them. There are highly productive members of the Linux > community who only send a dozen patches per _year_. > OK, I will be more careful and spend more time on each patch by this way count will be reduce and quality will also improve. Please check [git-pull -tip] x86: declaration patches Sam and Thomas reviewed them and I also fixed the pointed issues. My problem is I am work-addict I can not sit ideal ;-) Thanks for your advice, -- JSR -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists