linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mfd: (max8997) Handle the potential error for mfd_add

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: <20131216170200.GT18769@lee--X1>
Date:	Mon, 16 Dec 2013 17:02:00 +0000
From:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:	Laszlo Papp <lpapp@....org>
Cc:	sameo@...ux.intel.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: (max8997) Handle the potential error for
 mfd_add_devices

> >> > No top posting please.
> >>
> >> Tell that to the client I need to use. IMO, making these inline posts
> >> mandatorily when the reply is a single line makes not much sense.
> >> Anyway, I will follow the inconvenient way.
> >
> > If you are not replying to a particular comment, then there is no need
> > to quote it.
> 
> I did not actually quote anything above my reply.

No, you quoted the entire message _below_ your reply, which is worse.

> > Please read and inwardly digest:
> >   Documentation/email-clients.txt
> 
> I have read that, however I still have certain restrictions here which
> are over the kernel community rules.  That should not block a useful
> contribution in my opinion.

Your email client does not prevent you from replying inline, which
you've proven by this email. Please abide by the rules if you're going
to contribute.

> >> >> > The $SUBJECT line is wrong. To see how a subsystem usually formats
> >> >> > theirs you must do something like `git log --oneline -- <subsystem>`.
> >> >> > And duplicate the format.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Commit message?
> >> >
> >> > These comments are still relevant, please re-post your patch with the
> >> > points rectified.
> >>
> >> I really do not understand how they relevant. "Commit message?" ->
> >> What about it?
> >
> > The issue is that there isn't one.
> 
> I do not follow. Here is the commit message: "mfd: (max8997) Handle
> the potential error for mfd_add_devices". What is missing? It now
> handles an error for adding mfd devices which was not handled before.
> It mentions for which chip. What more needs to be written? I am
> currently lost.

Please read:
  Documentation/SubmittingPatches 

Specifically No2.

> >> It has a pretty clear commit message.
> >
> > If you are referencing my comments about the $SUBJECT line, then I
> > have to disagree with you there. It's actually pretty vague, does not
> > describe either the issue or what steps you've taken to rectify it.
> >
> >> Are you now just
> >> picking nits about "foo:" vs "(foo)" in the short line?
> >
> > That is also an issue. Did you issue the command I sent you:
> >
> >   `git log --oneline -- drivers/mfd`
> >
> > Issue it now and see if _anyone_ has _ever_ used your formatting.
> 
> Right, so nitpicking about a minor nuance over a somewhat important
> error handling. Is that blocking the error handling change or you can
> fix that up yourself? I currently do not have time, nor environment
> for satisfy this request. I can probably do it the upcoming days.

It's not my responsibility to fixup your patches for you. It's your
job to ensure they are correct on submission. I am happy to review
them for you and provide you with my comments, which I have done.

Either fix them up and re-submit or don't. It's no skin off my nose.

> >> >> >> +     if (ret < 0) {
> >> >> >> +             dev_err(dev, "cannot add mfd cells\n");
> >> >> >> +             goto err_mfd;
> >> >> >> +     }
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Have you tested this patch on h/w? Did you even compile it?
> >> >
> >> > You must ensure to test your patches before sending to the MLs, it's
> >> > the very least we expect.
> >>
> >> I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Feel free to reject
> >> the patch for this error handling.
> >
> > I'm not rejecting it because of the error handling, I'm rejecting it
> > because it hasn't been tested and it doesn't even compile.
> 
> It *has* been tested, and it does compile here. I think you just got
> stuck with the old patch rather than taking any look at new version.
> May I ask you to do please so? That has been fixed in the new
> submission before your email.

I have seen the new patch where you fixed it. My comments are solely in
reference to this patch though. Testing patches _after_ you've sent
them to the MLs is not acceptable.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
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/