linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Staging: rtl8712: rtl871x_ioctl_linux.c Move constant to right side of the comparision

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, 28 Sep 2015 19:16:30 +0530
From:	punit vara <punitvara@...il.com>
To:	Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>
Cc:	Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
	Flo Schil <florian.c.schilhabel@...glemail.com>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Dogukan Ergun <dogukan.ergun@...il.com>,
	Joshua Clayton <stillcompiling@...il.com>,
	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Staging: rtl8712: rtl871x_ioctl_linux.c Move constant to
 right side of the comparision

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Sudip Mukherjee
<sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 12:45:46PM -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
>> On 09/26/2015 11:49 AM, Punit Vara wrote:
>> >This patch is to the rtl871x_ioctl_linux.c that fixes up following
>> >warning reported by checkpatch.pl :
>> >
>> >- Comparisons should place the constant on the right side of the test
>> >
>> >Signed-off-by: Punit Vara <punitvara@...il.com>
>>
>> This warning is crap. WTF difference does it make???? The compiler
>> does not care, and any reader with any piece of a brain is not going
>> to be confused!
>>
>> This patch and all others like it are just meaningless source churning!
>>
>> This author has made such a royal mess of his patches that I
>> recommend that ALL of them be dropped. In addition, we should
>> continue to drop his changes until he learns how to use git to
>> generate N/M patches, and until he reads the documentation on patch
>> submission.
> Excuse me for my ignorance, but I still can not see what was wrong with
> his patch. checkpatch is giving warning and he has fixed it. As far as
> sending in series is concerned, he is a newbie and after telling him how
> to generate patches in series he has learnt that. I have already told
> him that his patches might be dropped as they are not in series and he
> is ready to resend in series as soon as Greg confirms that they are
> dropped. And as long as the driver is in staging there will be source
> churning, isn't it?
> If i remember correctly I was told that for a driver to be moved out of
> staging the primary thing is that all checkpatch warnings needs to fixed.
> So if this driver has to move out of staging someday then these warnings
> also has to be fixed by someone.
>
> regards
> sudip

Thank you for understanding my situation @Sudip @Dan Carpenter ..
First I have planned to clean all the warning whatever it may be silly
or some serious. So that by cleaning those I can easily understand the
whole process . I was thinking to dig into TODO list and followed by
writing any driver. Greg please confirm me what should I do ? Do i
touch any rtl* ? It is first time I am working with this much huge
project .So may be I dont know what warnings are priority and what are
not ? I felt proud when my first patch was accepted .Execuse me @Larry
@Joshua if I irritate you by sending so many patches in sequence but I
am happy to clean all the staging driver warning first. So that every
programmer can focus on programming only not on cleanpatch warnings .

Regards,
Punit
--
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/