[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090703154209.GA13580@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 17:42:09 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vt: add an event interface
* Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> > It's an argument you made on false premises.
> >
> > The thing is, my review wasnt about old code being moved around. It
> > was about new code being introduced by you:
>
> Ingo, if you've nothing better to do than quote out of context and
> be offensive, perhaps you should go fix voyager support or
> something productive instead.
>
> The reply section you are quoting was about the code that was
> moved from place to place. I stand by that comment - you don't
> move code from place to place and reformat, rework it in one go.
> It's lousy engineering.
Your claim is simply false on its face. This commit:
| commit a6614999e800cf3a134ce93ea46ef837e3c0e76e
| Author: Alan Cox <alan@...hat.com>
| Date: Fri Jan 2 13:46:50 2009 +0000
|
| tty: Introduce some close helpers for ports
did not 'move' the piece of code i quoted around:
+ if( tty->count == 1 && port->count != 1) {
+ printk(KERN_WARNING
+ "tty_port_close_start: tty->count = 1 port count = %d.\n",
+ port->count);
+ port->count = 1;
+ }
+ if (--port->count < 0) {
+ printk(KERN_WARNING "tty_port_close_start: count = %d\n",
+ port->count);
+ port->count = 0;
+ }
it introduces it. This line:
+ if( tty->count == 1 && port->count != 1) {
can be found nowhere else in the commit. You added it.
In fact, if one looks closer, it turns out that:
$ git log -p -1 a6614999e800cf3a134ce93ea46ef837e3c0e76e | grep -iE 'if.*tty->count'
- if (tty->count == 1 && port->port.count != 1) {
- if (tty->count == 1 && port->count != 1)
- if ((tty->count == 1) && (info->port.count != 1)) {
- if ((tty->count == 1) && (port->port.count != 1)) {
- if (tty->count == 1 && port->count != 1)
- if ((tty->count == 1) && (info->port.count != 1)) {
- if ((tty->count == 1) && (info->port.count != 1)) {
- if ((tty->count == 1) && (info->port.count != 1)) {
+ if( tty->count == 1 && port->count != 1) {
that you consolidate 8 separate pieces of code, all of which got
this basic detail right, and you _introduced_ the uncleanliness.
Ingo
--
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