linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [USB] UAS: Rename urbs by pipe

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <732901.49803.qm@web31801.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date:	Mon, 8 Nov 2010 09:52:36 -0800 (PST)
From:	Luben Tuikov <ltuikov@...oo.com>
To:	Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [USB] UAS: Rename urbs by pipe

--- On Mon, 11/8/10, Luben Tuikov <ltuikov@...oo.com> wrote:
> --- On Mon, 11/8/10, Matthew Wilcox
> <willy@...ux.intel.com>
> wrote:
> > -0700, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> > > The reason to do this is to accommodate sending
> > > different IU types using the existing
> > > infrastructure.
> > 
> > Applied, with a modified changelog entry ...
> 
> Again, where is it applied and what is the (new) modified
> changelog entry? Why would you leave this detail out in your
> response to the patch?

Please have some professional integrity and EITHER a) ask me to
resubmit the patch with a new change log (what would you like?) or b) discuss it here publicly.

See my previous post on your other modification of the change log
to my other patch against your code.

> 
> > 
> > >      struct urb *data_out_urb;
> > >      struct list_head list;
> > >  };
> > >  
> > > -/* I hate forward declarations, but I actually
> have a
> > loop */
> > >  static int uas_submit_urbs(struct scsi_cmnd
> > *cmnd,
> > >         
> >         struct uas_dev_info
> > *devinfo, gfp_t gfp);
> > >  
> > 
> > Except for this spurious chunk.
> 
> Sorry, please help us understand: You'll LEAVE a
> self-gratifying, narcissistic and pompous statement like "I
> hate forward-declarations"? Why would you use such a strong
> word? Why would you "hate"? How about: "I don't like" or "I
> know lk style discourages", etc. Why would you add /one
> more/ "hate" word into the kernel?
> 
> I think everyone sees why this forward-decl is needed.
> 
> I wonder if the relation of the number of the "hate" word
> in the linux kernel versus time correlates to something,
> anything? Now that's easier to track and analyze in time
> using git.
> 
> Compared to people losing their homes and jobs nowadays,
> I'll take a forward declaration any time of day and night.
> 
> Bottom line: please consider the patch as is.
> 
> 
--
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/