linux-kernel - Re: GPU-DRM-QXL: Move three assignments in qxl_device

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: <5a98e827-4ac1-ee6f-171b-02de97927a69@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:   Fri, 23 Sep 2016 10:34:23 +0200
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:     dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Bhaktipriya Shridhar <bhaktipriya96@...il.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Noralf Trønnes <noralf@...nnes.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: GPU-DRM-QXL: Move three assignments in qxl_device_init()

>> Would you like to discuss the statistics for my failure (or success) rate
>> a bit more so that involved issues can be clarified in a constructive way?
> 
> It should be that you target 20 bug fixes for each new regression
> that you add.

How do you think about to clarify any concrete "regression" a bit more?


> There is no hope for improving the kernel

I have got an other impression. - I am trying to help also for this goal.


> because you are not even trying to fix 20 bugs,

Under which circumstances would you dare to acknowledge once more
that I improved anything for which you care about?


> only introducing them.

It's a pity that you interpret some of my contributions in this way.


> Once you fix 20 bugs, then you will be even and you can start sending
> cleanups again.  This is fair.

How much will the suggested software refactorings influence the kind of
error counter that you prefer so far?

Regards,
Markus