linux-kernel - Re: iio: Adjust checks for null pointers in six functions

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:   Sun, 25 Sep 2016 19:15:09 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:     SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Cc:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
        Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: iio: Adjust checks for null pointers in six functions

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 07:45:40PM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:

> I assume that the involved software developers got a specific impression
> about the discussed patch series for this software module so that a few
> relevant dependencies became clearer eventually.
> 
> I proposed some update steps where I chose a specific patch granularity
> once more. So I imagine that a bit of variation in the patch order
> could be supported already.
> 
> Will it be possible to apply also this one a bit later just because
> the patch hunk contexts might be still valid in the (near) future?

I wonder if you realize that your postings _reek_ with the Strong Programme
intellectual offal...  Are you, by any chance, some kind of sociology grad?
You can't study development purely on the process level, ignoring the actual
usefulness of contributions and the fact that there are objective criteria
of their worth.