linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kernel/sysctl_binary.c: improve the usage of return value 'result'

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: <520208D1.3090102@huawei.com>
Date:	Wed, 7 Aug 2013 16:44:01 +0800
From:	Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>
To:	Chen Gang <gang.chen@...anux.com>
CC:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, <xi.wang@...il.com>,
	<nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/sysctl_binary.c: improve the usage of return value
 'result'

>> The first one is, if you get a reply from a maintainer (especially a top
>> maintainer), try harder to understand/learn from that reply, but don't
>> keep asking why and don't keep arguing without much thinking. I think
>> what's why sometimes people are annoyed in the discussion with you.
>>
> 
> In my opinion, "understand/learn" means:
> 
>   learn the proof which the author supplied;
>   understand the author's opinion;
>   know about what the author wants to do now (especially why he intents to send/reply mail to you).
> 
> But "understand/learn" does not mean:
> 
>   familiar about the 'professional' details.
>   if each related member knows about the 'professional' details, it only need a work flow, not need discussing.
> 
> Do you think so too ?
> 
> 
> Hmm... for each reply, I think it has 3 requirements:
> 
>   1. match the original contents which we want to reply.
>   2. say opinion clearly.
>   3. provide proof.
> 
> I guess your suggestion is for 1st: if we can not understand/learn from
> the original contents, of cause, our reply can not match it.
> 
> Since discussing is thinking process, and we may get more understanding
> during thinking, so it permits to continue reply multiple times (if for
> each reply is qualified with the 3 requirements above).
> 
> 
> Have you ever seen some of my reply which misunderstand(or not learn
> enough) from original contents ?
> 
> Maybe you often saw that I continue reply multiple times for a thread,
> but I think, each reply matches the 3 requirements above.
> 

You fail to see there's a problem in you and how you frustrate people and
waste their time...

For example in this thread:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/4/405

and this therad:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/6/20/228

Please don't argue anymore...

Back to coding and won't reply to this thread...

--
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/