linux-kernel - Re: [RFC, 2.6.26.2-rc1] fs/partition/check.c: fix return value warning

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0808021254190.3874@nehalem.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Sat, 2 Aug 2008 12:56:10 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Oliver Pinter <oliver.pntr@...il.com>
cc:	Abdel Benamrouche <draconux@...il.com>, stable@...nel.org,
	jens.axboe@...cle.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC, 2.6.26.2-rc1]  fs/partition/check.c: fix return value
 warning

On Sat, 2 Aug 2008, Oliver Pinter wrote:
>
> Subject: [PATCH] fs/partition/check.c: fix return value warning
> 
> [ Upstream commit d805dda412346225a50af2d399d958a4bc676c38 ]

Why are these being submitted for stable kernels?

Oliver - stable kernels should _not_ get trivial fixes that don't actually 
have any problems associated with them. 

Every patch in a stable kernel has a downside. It had better have a big 
upside too.  These don't.

Please don't just send patches to the stable team because they "look 
fine". They should be real bugs, with real consequences. And no, a 
compiler warning is not a real consequence.

		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/