linux-kernel - Re: Fwd: Re: Patchwork [1/1] staging: ks7010: Attempt to structure and format to standards

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <7ecbe941-1b14-dba1-c23c-896300769ffd@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 25 Sep 2016 13:59:18 +0200
From:   Marcel Xubuntu <fooglesucks@...il.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     wsa@...-dreams.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Patchwork [1/1] staging: ks7010: Attempt to structure
 and format to standards

On 9/25/16 12:34, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 06:08:34PM +0200, Marcel Xubuntu wrote:
>>
>> Code formatting and structuring.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Marcel Ricquier <fooglesucks@...il.com>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Tested-by: Marcel Ricquier <fooglesucks@...il.com>
>>
>> Mostly code formatting, unapologetically a stepping stone for a potential
>> refactoring with a knowledge seeking, following complete disclosure,
>> ultimate goal.
>> In case this fails, my backup plan is to have the world's record for the
>> quickest kernel patch dismissal, either way it's a win. Did I win ?!
>
> Why did you repeat this?
I like repeating things sometimes.
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks7010_sdio.c
>> b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks7010_sdio.c
>> index b7337fd..8de2713 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks7010_sdio.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks7010_sdio.c
>> @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@
>>   #include <linux/mmc/card.h>
>>   #include <linux/mmc/sdio_func.h>
>>   #include <linux/workqueue.h>
>> -#include <asm/atomic.h>
>> +#include <linux/atomic.h>
>
> Patch is corrupted and can not be applied :(
Yes, this was an exercise in reconnaissance. I don't want the name of 
Ricquier correlated with some meaningless style fixing on code that is 
beyond repair and provides an entry  point for outsiders.
>
> Also, you didn't read the link I provided in the last review, please do
> so and fix up the patch to only do one type of a thing at a time.
> (hint, "fix all checkpatch issues" is not one thing...)
I did, see above. A real patch is outstanding.
>
> thanks,
thank you!
>
> greg k-h
>