linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] panic: improve panic

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 Nov 2013 14:28:12 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] panic: improve panic_timeout calculation


* Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 6:49 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > * Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 5:32 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > * Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> We want to calculate the blinks per second, and instead of making it 5
> >> >> (1000 / (3600 / 18)), let's make it 4, so the user can see two blinks
> >> >> per second.
> >> >
> >> > Please use the customary changelog style we use in the kernel:
> >> >
> >> >   " Current code does (A), this has a problem when (B).
> >> >     We can improve this doing (C), because (D)."
> >>
> >> A is explained, B is empty, C is explained, D is because it makes sense.

So one problem with your changelog is that you describe the change but 
don't explain a couple of things - for example why you changed '3600' to 
'1000'.

I know why you did it because I've read the diff and the related code, but 
such kind of information is best put into changelogs.

This is standard review feedback.

> >
> > NAKed-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> 
> Suit yourself, stay with your buggy code then.

I NAK-ed your patch because your patch has several technical problems. To 
lift the NAK you'll need to address my review feedback constructively.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/