linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5] x86: UV uv

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: <BANLkTiknsRgnkM=pQhAzFDe_uCWG-Du7hw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 24 May 2011 18:37:11 +0300
From:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Cliff Wickman <cpw@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] x86: UV uv_tlb.c cleanup

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> Don't the kfree()s get changed - i.e. the patch has a side-effect?
>
> And yes, while this might be a kmem leak fix, it is a fix and a *SIDE EFFECT*
> which i explicitly asked to be queued in a separate patch(es) from the large
> cleanup patch ...
>
> The cleanup patch should be a cleanup of existing code - even if that code has
> bugs. Nothing more. Bug fixes are for different patches.

There's also renames in the patch that make it pretty hard to review
for correctness. Formatting changes are best done as separate patches.
--
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/