linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] vt: add an event interface

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 3 Jul 2009 17:42:09 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vt: add an event interface


* Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:

> > It's an argument you made on false premises.
> > 
> > The thing is, my review wasnt about old code being moved around. It 
> > was about new code being introduced by you:
> 
> Ingo, if you've nothing better to do than quote out of context and 
> be offensive, perhaps you should go fix voyager support or 
> something productive instead.
> 
> The reply section you are quoting was about the code that was 
> moved from place to place. I stand by that comment - you don't 
> move code from place to place and reformat, rework it in one go. 
> It's lousy engineering.

Your claim is simply false on its face. This commit:

 | commit a6614999e800cf3a134ce93ea46ef837e3c0e76e
 | Author: Alan Cox <alan@...hat.com>
 | Date:   Fri Jan 2 13:46:50 2009 +0000
 |
 |     tty: Introduce some close helpers for ports

did not 'move' the piece of code i quoted around:

+       if( tty->count == 1 && port->count != 1) {
+               printk(KERN_WARNING
+                   "tty_port_close_start: tty->count = 1 port count = %d.\n",
+                                                               port->count);
+               port->count = 1;
+	}
+	if (--port->count < 0) {
+               printk(KERN_WARNING "tty_port_close_start: count = %d\n",
+                                                               port->count);
+               port->count = 0;
+	}

it introduces it. This line:

+       if( tty->count == 1 && port->count != 1) {

can be found nowhere else in the commit. You added it.

In fact, if one looks closer, it turns out that:

$ git log -p -1 a6614999e800cf3a134ce93ea46ef837e3c0e76e | grep -iE 'if.*tty->count'
-	if (tty->count == 1 && port->port.count != 1) {
-	if (tty->count == 1 && port->count != 1)
-	if ((tty->count == 1) && (info->port.count != 1)) {
-	if ((tty->count == 1) && (port->port.count != 1))  {
-	if (tty->count == 1 && port->count != 1)
-	if ((tty->count == 1) && (info->port.count != 1)) {
-	if ((tty->count == 1) && (info->port.count != 1)) {
-	if ((tty->count == 1) && (info->port.count != 1)) {
+	if( tty->count == 1 && port->count != 1) {

that you consolidate 8 separate pieces of code, all of which got 
this basic detail right, and you _introduced_ the uncleanliness.

	Ingo
--
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/