linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/86] PATA fixes

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: <4B18357C.8070807@garzik.org>
Date:	Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:02:36 -0500
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>
CC:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/86] PATA fixes

On 12/03/2009 04:56 PM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> On Thursday 03 December 2009 10:51:09 pm Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
>>>>>          pata_via: clear UDMA transfer mode bit for PIO and MWDMA
>>>>
>>>> applied -- even though Alan's comment was correct.  It is standard
>>>> kernel practice to place cosmetic changes into their own patches,
>>>> because it is standard kernel practice to break up logically distinct
>>>> changes.
>>>
>>> We are talking about:
>>>
>>>    pata_via.c |   19 +++++++++++++------
>>>    1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> patch here (http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/11/25/380) and cosmetic change
>>> is clearly documented in the patch description.
>>>
>>>
>>> Do people really wonder why I find upstream to be too much hassle to
>>> deal with?
>>
>> The thousand other kernel developers seem to be able to split up their
>> patches, separating out cosmetic changes from functional ones.  It has
>> clear engineering benefits, and has been standard practice for a decade
>> or more.
>>
>> Why is it such an imposition for your patches to look like everyone
>> else's?  And by "everyone", I mean all other kernel developers, not just
>> other ATA developers.
>>
>> You seem to consider standard kernel practice a hassle.  Separating out
>> cosmetic changes is not only a libata practice, it is the norm for the
>> entire kernel.
>
> Indeed.
>
>  From 94be9a58d7e683ac3c1df1858a17f09ebade8da0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Jeff Garzik<jeff@...zik.org>
> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 10:17:09 -0500
> Subject: [PATCH] [libata] get-identity ioctl: Fix use of invalid memory pointer
>   for SAS drivers.
>
> Caught by Ke Wei (and team?) at Marvell.
>
> Also, move the ata_scsi_ioctl export to libata-scsi.c, as that seems to be the
> general trend.
>
> Acked-by: James Bottomley<James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Garzik<jgarzik@...hat.com>

If your point, by posting this patch, is that it includes a ton of 
gratuitous cosmetic changes, you misread the patch.

ata_scsi_ioctl() remains in existence; only the callers need to use the 
new SAS-related ioctl function were updated.  The remainder continued to 
use ata_scsi_ioctl().

	Jeff




--
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/