linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] panic: setup 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]

Message-ID: <CAMP44s3q8bc6ENqwetGE1yx9LYA+YdBVmEtok+DwykXLu794DQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 15 Nov 2013 14:10:43 -0600
From:	Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Levente Kurusa <levex@...ux.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] panic: setup panic_timeout early

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> It's not just code. You need to also explain *why* people should apply
> it, and stop the f*cking idiotic arguing every time somebody comments
> about your patches.

Doesn't this explain it?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
panic: setup panic_timeout early

Otherwise we might not reboot when the user needs it the most (early
on).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I haven't seen a single complaint about this commit message, so I
don't see what is your point.

You didn't address what I said at all. If the code is technically
correct *and* it is clear there's a reason why the patch should be
applied, who sent the patch should be irrelevant, because even if that
person is problematic, and there's something lacking in the patch,
somebody else can take it from there and fix the remaining issues,
because if there's a reason the patch should be applied, it should be
applied.

In this particular case it is clear we want panic_timeout to work
early on, therefore a patch should be applied to achieve that, and you
might as well simply apply the patch I sent, even though *I* sent it,
because it's technically correct, and the need is explained. Why
wouldn't you?

-- 
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/