Date:	Mon, 8 Nov 2010 10:46:18 -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, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [USB] UAS: Use kzalloc instead of kmalloc

--- On Mon, 11/8/10, Luben Tuikov <ltuikov@...oo.com> wrote:
> --- On Mon, 11/8/10, Luben Tuikov
> <ltuikov@...oo.com>
> wrote:
> > --- On Mon, 11/8/10, Matthew Wilcox
> > <willy@...ux.intel.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 01:22:22PM
> > > -0700, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> > > > "Be conservative in what you send, liberal
> in
> > what
> > > > you accept." -- In the spirit of this
> adage,
> > don't
> > > > send Command IUs with randomly filled in
> data in
> > > > the reserved fields. (Yes, this shows up on
> the
> > > > wire.)
> > > 
> > > Applied, with a better changelog entry ...
> > 
> > "Better"? Where did you apply it? Your willy/uas.git
> > doesn't show it (updated 3 months ago), neither do
> Greg's.
> > 
> > BTW, is it customary to change the change log?  What
> > did you change? Do you mind sharing?
> 
> Matthew, could you reply-all here with your new, changed
> and
> modified change log?
> 
> I'd like you to be accountable to what and how you've
> changed the changelog HERE and not in a git three somewhere
> and have an open comparison to what your new change log is
> and what is says.
> 
> Mine, quoted above:
>   a) mentions an adage that's been around for 30 years
> at least,
>      in the UNIX/net field to which we
> adhere.
>   b) mentions (only!) the Command IU of making out on
> the wire
>      with stale system data of the
> memory used for it.
> 
> Could you please reconsider your professional integrity
> and
> submit the patch as is with the original log?

Matthew,

I did NOT Signed-off-by: with my name and email to a patch where you've changed both the change log and the diff.

Now, you have two options here:

a) commit the modified by you patches, {change log and diff}, AS YOUR OWN patches, removing the Signed-off-by: me line, OR

b) commit the patch, {change log and diff}, as I've posted it, thus preserving the Signed-off-by: me line.

A Signed-off-by: line is a digital signature, and we cannot have that under text (the change log) that that person didn't write or agree to.

I don't mind either a) or b), but if a) then we need to include this practice of changing the patch {change log and diff} by the maintainer and removing the Signed-off-by: line of the author of the patch in Documentation/development-process/ so that contributors to the kernel are aware of this practice.

> 
> > > > @@ -660,7 +660,7 @@ static int
> uas_probe(struct
> > > usb_interface *intf, const struct usb_device_id
> *id)
> > > >         
> > >     return -ENODEV;
> > > >      }
> > > >  
> > > > -    devinfo = kmalloc(sizeof(struct
> > > uas_dev_info), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > +    devinfo = kzalloc(sizeof(struct
> > > uas_dev_info), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > >      if (!devinfo)
> > > >          return
> > > -ENOMEM;
> > > >  
> > > 
> > > Except for this hunk, which isn't an IU and
> doesn't go
> > out
> > > on the wire.
> > 
> > Lol, no of course it doesn't, silly!
> 
> And notice that /my/ change log doesn't claim that 
> uas_dev_info makes it out the wire. It only mentions that
> the Command IU makes it out the wire with stale data.
> 
> > 
> > So help us understand: You've preserved all changes
> from
> > kmalloc->kzalloc and left a single kmalloc alone.
> And
> > your reason is that "*This* one doesn't go out on the
> > wire?"
> > 
> > Wouldn't if have been more consistent (and harmless)
> to
> > have changed all of them, just as the patch did?
> > 
> >
> 
--
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