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]

Message-ID: <CAOJsxLHzXV3MDHH+83iwxaUtO=931Bmq1JRzS=MQx=6wa-wi2w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 11 Jul 2011 08:55:19 +0300
From:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
To:	Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>
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

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fact, out of date.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:

 - 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.

                                 Pekka
--
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/