linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/38] tick cleanups and bugfixes

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: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1404150116130.22697@ionos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:	Tue, 15 Apr 2014 01:38:40 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
cc:	linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	fweisbec@...il.com, Arvind.Chauhan@....com,
	linaro-networking@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/38] tick cleanups and bugfixes

On Mon, 14 Apr 2014, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> These are separate cleanups from the timers/hrtimers ones I did. I was waiting
> for the merge window to close in order to send these and by the time it
> happened, I got a long pending list.
> 
> These are mostly cleanups, reorders for better readability or efficiency, and
> few bugfixes.

And that's wrong to begin with.

Bugfixes first and then all other stuff. We dont want dependencies of
bugfixes on cleanups, reordering of code ...

I'm not applying a wholesale checkpatch.pl patch which creates noise
for no value.

I don't mind if you cleanup stuff while doing other changes, but
definitely not as a stand alone starter of a large patch queue with
bugfixes which depend on that.

Now looking at the thing some more, it contains gems like this:

-               printk(KERN_ERR "tick-broadcast: ignoring broadcast for "
-                      "offline CPU #%d\n", *oncpu);
+               printk(KERN_ERR "tick-broadcast: ignoring broadcast for offline CPU #%d\n",
+                      *oncpu);

If you fix that checkpatch.pl line wrap issue, why do you not change
printk(KERN_ERR) to pr_err() as well?

checkpatch.pl is happy, right?

I'm tired of this, really.

Please send me the next series in the following way:

- send a bug fix series, which does nothing else than fixing bugs.

  when that is applied, then

- send a small batch of improvements for a particular issue and not a
  mixed bag of random patches.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/