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]

Date:	Tue, 24 May 2011 21:29:49 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
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


* Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org> wrote:

> 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.

Well, yeah, but there were so many cleanliness problems with that code that i 
think we are better off with having this big cleanup over and then start 
working with small, self-contained cleanups and improvements.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/