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: <200912032306.52022.bzolnier@gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 3 Dec 2009 23:06:51 +0100
From:	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>
To:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
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 Thursday 03 December 2009 11:02:36 pm Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 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().

Moving kernel exports around is completely unrelated to a bug fix.

Yes, it is convenient to do it in the same patch and OK with me.

--
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
--
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/