linux-kernel - Re: [FOR REVIEW, PATCH 2/2] introduce "struct wait_opts" to simplify do

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: <20090507074931.01E5EFC39E@magilla.sf.frob.com>
Date:	Thu,  7 May 2009 00:49:30 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [FOR REVIEW, PATCH 2/2] introduce "struct wait_opts" to
	simplify do_wait() pathes

> I must admit, I do not agree. I feel the opposite. Yes we have 2 repeated
> assignment blocks, but there are not exactly equal, and imho the difference
> is more visible this way.

Ok, whatever.

> That said. This is not the technical issue, I can't "prove" I am right and
> of course I may be wrong. I think we should follow the "maintaner is always
> right" rule ;)
> 
> I'll send this change as another cleanup on top of the new series.

Nah.  The "he who wrote the last patch is the real maintainer" rule is
better.  If the theoretical pitfalls I imagine ever materialize under our
feet, I'll tell everybody it was your fault (git will, anyway). ;-)


Thanks,
Roland
--
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/