linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Avoid Wunused-but-set warning

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:	Mon, 11 Jul 2011 22:37:50 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>
To:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
cc:	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@...il.com>,
	Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	Raghavendra D Prabhu <rprabhu@...hang.net>,
	linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, Nir Tzachar <nir.tzachar@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Avoid Wunused-but-set warning

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Pekka Enberg wrote:

> Hi Jesper,
> 
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 2:21 AM, Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net> wrote:
> > In any case, you can't expect people to base their Acked-by/Reviewed-by
> > replies on some conclusion in some email thread that happened years ago
> > but was never written down in some document in the repository.
> > It is only reasonable to expect people to behave according to the rules
> > laid out in SubmittingPatches and similar documents, and those rules
> > currently seem to support my interpretation, not yours.
> 
> The definitions in SubmittingPatches are not hard rules and are, in
> fact, out of date. See Documentation/development-process/5.Posting for
> alternative definitions:
> 
Thank you for pointing me at that document. Was not aware of it (or I'd 
forgotten if I ever did know of it).

>  - Acked-by: indicates an agreement by another developer (often a
>    maintainer of the relevant code) that the patch is appropriate for
>    inclusion into the kernel.
> 
> and
> 
>  - Reviewed-by: the named developer has reviewed the patch for correctness;
>    see the reviewer's statement in Documentation/SubmittingPatches for more
>    detail.
> 
> and then compare the dates for these definitions:
> 
> 0f44cd23 (Andrew Morton      2007-06-08 13:46:45 -0700 401) Acked-by:
> is often used by the maintainer of the affected code when that
> 0f44cd23 (Andrew Morton      2007-06-08 13:46:45 -0700 402) maintainer
> neither contributed to nor forwarded the patch.
> 
> 75b02146 (Jonathan Corbet 2008-09-30 15:15:56 -0600 205)  - Acked-by:
> indicates an agreement by another developer (often a
> 75b02146 (Jonathan Corbet 2008-09-30 15:15:56 -0600 206)    maintainer
> of the relevant code) that the patch is appropriate for
> 75b02146 (Jonathan Corbet 2008-09-30 15:15:56 -0600 207)    inclusion
> into the kernel.
> 
> So it is NOT reasonable 'to expect people to behave according to the
> rules laid out in SubmittingPatches and similar documents' because
> such documents have never had any hard rules! The documents are
> guidelines that attempt to document how things work here, not lay down
> the law.
> 

I know that. I was never trying to say that they were hard rules/law. 
I was just trying to express my personal interpretation of those 
guidelines and how I have been using them. If it came across as me saying 
that they were set-in-stone rules then I guess I need to improve my 
communication skills.


-- 
Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>       http://www.chaosbits.net/
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please.

--
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/