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: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 02:33:55 +0100 From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk> To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> Subject: Re: fault.c cleanup, what else could it be On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 03:13:55AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > There is simply no excuse for ever having let that crap get there > into fs/proc/base.c. There is no excuse for ever letting that crap > grow. The fact that that crap is there is proof of systemic failure > over the years to keep that code clean. Nothing like proof by assertion, eh? > I dont really want to see "real work" done on code that was not > properly and cleanly finished in the first place. Tough. At the moment we have a rather unpleasant hole with tentative fix that touches fs/proc/base.c. Whether you want said work postponed until all whitespace wanking is done on file in question or not, I simply don't give a damn - getting rid of real bug takes precedence. Whitespace crap should be dealt with as we go through the functions containing such crap, religious bullshit nonwithstanding. And I very much object against completely unfounded assertions claiming that checkpatch noise makes a useful proxy for code quality. You keep making those again and again, without a shred of evidence to show. -- 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