linux-kernel - Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] USB: serial: cp210x: Got rid of magic numbers in CRTSCTS flag code.

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:	Wed, 4 May 2016 14:55:11 +0200
From:	Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To:	Konstantin Shkolnyy <Konstantin.Shkolnyy@...abs.com>
Cc:	Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
	Konstantin Shkolnyy <konstantin.shkolnyy@...il.com>,
	"linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] USB: serial: cp210x: Got rid of magic
 numbers in CRTSCTS flag code.

On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 12:46:17PM +0000, Konstantin Shkolnyy wrote:
> > -----Original Message----- From: linux-usb-owner@...r.kernel.org
> > [mailto:linux-usb- owner@...r.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Johan Hovold
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 02:29 To: Konstantin Shkolnyy Cc:
> > johan@...nel.org; linux-usb@...r.kernel.org; linux-
> > kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] USB:
> > serial: cp210x: Got rid of magic numbers in CRTSCTS flag code.
> > 
> > On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 07:52:23PM -0500, Konstantin Shkolnyy wrote:
> > > Replaced magic numbers used in the CRTSCTS flag code with symbolic
> > names
> > > from the chip specification.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Konstantin Shkolnyy <konstantin.shkolnyy@...il.com>
> > 
> > This patch does not even compile. Please be more careful when
> > resubmitting. There are at least two compilation errors below.
> 
> Sorry about that.
> 
> It's a couple of dumb syntax errors that don't really matter for
> change review purpose. Otherwise, do the patches look good? 

It's worse than that as when the code doesn't even compile it's obvious
that it has never been tested. That is just not acceptable, and the code
does not deserve review.

Johan