linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] use callbacks to access UART_DLL/UART

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: <56730985.1080609@free.fr>
Date:	Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:14:13 +0100
From:	Mason <slash.tmp@...e.fr>
To:	Mans Rullgard <mans@...sr.com>
Cc:	Sebastian Frias <sf84@...oste.net>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Magnus Damm <damm@...nsource.se>, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] use callbacks to access UART_DLL/UART_DLM

On 17/12/2015 19:09, Måns Rullgård wrote:

> It could well be that your patch results in a clearer final version, but
> the diff is harder to parse when unchanged lines have moved around.

When all other things are equal, is the priority

1) making the patch as clear as possible?
2) making the resulting code as clear as possible?

On a related note, I remember spotting a problem in a phy driver
commit, and was told (by you) that I should split my fix in 3 (!!)
patches. I'm sorry, but that's a double standard, why would the
initial committer be given the leeway to post a single patch,
but someone willing to clean up his mess should work harder?

End result: I left the bug in there.

Regards.
--
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/