| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20121004.142335.1467206545795435493.davem@davemloft.net> Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 14:23:35 -0400 (EDT) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: peter.senna@...il.com Cc: shemminger@...tta.com, mlindner@...vell.com, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/20] drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/skge.c: fix error return code From: Peter Senna Tschudin <peter.senna@...il.com> Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 19:32:12 +0200 > I can't understand the advantages of describing each patch as you are > asking. "For me" the generic commit message together with the patch > makes sense. Can you please help me on that? Stop being so dense. We want to know the implications of the bug being fixed. Does it potentially cause an OOPS? Bad reference counting and thus potential leaks or early frees? You have to analyze the implications and ramifications of the bug being fixed. We need that information. Your commit messages are in fact robotic, they don't describe the salient details of what kinds of problems the bug being fixed might cause. It's just "bad error code, this is the script that fixed it, kthx, bye" which is pretty much useless for anaylsis. -- 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