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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 11 Nov 2013 07:43:59 -0600
From:	Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
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

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 7:28 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> * 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'.

Yes, I am aware of that, and it probably should, but that has nothing
to do with (A)(B)(C) or (D).

>> > 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.

No, this is why you NAK-ed the patch:

> > A is explained, B is empty, C is explained, D is because it makes sense.
>
> NAKed-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>

That is not a technical problem, that's an allegedly administrative
one. I said I would fix the technical issues.

> To lift the NAK you'll need to address my review feedback constructively.

That's exactly what I did. Addressing feedback constructively doesn't
mean do exactly what you say without arguing.

I will resend the patches separately since you are focusing on the
irrelevant patches and not paying attention to the one I made clear
was the important one, muddying it. I will address the technical and
administrative issues in the 2nd and 3rd patches in the way I think is
best.

-- 
Felipe Contreras
--
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/