linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3 2/4] cpufreq: governor: Implement per policy instances of governors

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: <CAKohpok9zoq10UHCSQ5MC-dKcv89dqDkActLKng-6P6wd1oCFw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 22 Mar 2013 17:35:59 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
	robin.randhawa@....com, Steve.Bannister@....com,
	Liviu.Dudau@....com, charles.garcia-tobin@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 2/4] cpufreq: governor: Implement per policy instances
 of governors

On 22 March 2013 17:41, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> Well, if the submitter wants to cheat, she/he certainly can this way, but
> what's the benefit, honestly?  If the reviewer actually notices that there are
> more differences than the submitter admits to, the consequences may be quite
> unpleasant for the submitter (like the rejection of any future patches, for
> example).  And mistakes are possible anyway (and the more patches you deal
> with, the greater the chances of making a mistake are).

Agreed.. I was focusing on the last part: mistakes.. People learn over time
and can still commit mistakes.. So a diff is always better to see what changed.
--
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/