[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1294389025.2704.95.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 09:30:25 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@...il.com>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
stable@...nel.org, stable-review@...nel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [058/152] tcp: protect sysctl_tcp_cookie_size reads
Le jeudi 06 janvier 2011 à 23:08 -0500, William Allen Simpson a écrit :
> Thank you for bringing this to my attention. There's been quite a few
> changes in the 18 months since this function was originally written.
>
> The overall purpose of the patch seems OK, although most of the patch
> has nothing to do with the purported fix.
>
> That is, somebody preferred to alter conditions and remove braces. Seems
> harder to read to me! I'm surprised that this passed checkpatch.pl?
>
Hi William, here is somebody talking to you.
This part of the code was exactly what you wrote, with no change.
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/40126/
Are you telling us somebody else added bug to your code ?
This is not the case, obviously.
After bug fix and cleanup code looks good, and even checkpatch.pl is
fine with it. No need for useless brackets around "return XXX;"
If I remember well, I did the cleanup so that my patch could not trigger
checkpatch.pl errors/warnings. Not that I am a particular checkpatch
fan, but I know some people are.
By the way, you were CCed when I sent one month ago the mail to
David/netdev. And no reaction from you at that time.
--
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