linux-kernel - Re: [git pull] PCI pull request for 2.6.27

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:	Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:50:33 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [git pull] PCI pull request for 2.6.27

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> 
> Miklos Vajna (1):
>       x86/PCI: janitor work in irq.c

Please don't take patches like this.

If it's janitor work, the end result should be better. But it's not. This 
patch is full of stuff like

-	for(addr = (u8 *) __va(0xf0000); addr < (u8 *) __va(0x100000); addr += 16) {
+	for (addr = (u8 *) __va(0xf0000); addr < (u8 *) __va(0x100000);
+		addr += 16) {
 		rt = pirq_check_routing_table(addr);

Which just brings negative value. The code is _harder_ to look at, not 
easier.

The 80-character limit is less important than making code look obvious and 
indentation being readable. Splitting the for(;;) loop just made the 
indentation look like total crap.

I'm fixing it up (since it also caused trivial conflicts), but I'd ask 
people to just ignore that sh*t-for-brains that is the long-line warning 
when trying to fix it may silence a warning, but results in worse code!

		Linus
--
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/