[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0907250944570.3960@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 09:49:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
cc: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@...gle.com>, Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, barryn@...ox.com,
bugme-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bug 13012] 2.6.28.9 causes init to segfault on Debian etch;
2.6.28.8 OK
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, Dave Jones wrote:
>
> Is it worth fixing these up, with diffs like the below ?
Historically, when we fix up bugs like this, it causes more bugs than it
fixes.
It needs _really_ careful people, and people who really understand how C
type rules work. Stuff that looks obvious often is not, and basing a large
part of the patch on a compiler warning is a _very_ weak reason for
something that is more than just syntactic.
And the problem is, nobody can judge the patch from the diff. So it gets
absolutely zero review, until the day when somebody notices that the
unsigned version is a bug.
I'd suggest that the rule should be:
- if you can use -U30 and show all uses, so that people can actually look
at the patch and see what it _causes_ (ie not just the "we change 'i'
to 'unsigned'", but also the "this is where 'i' gets used, and
'unsigned' is right"), then we can apply it.
- none of the patches go through a 'trivial' tree, or come from newbies
that think this is a good way to get involved.
Is it worth it at that point? I dunno.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists