linux-kernel - Re: GPU-DRM-STI: Fine-tuning for some function implementations

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: <CA+M3ks4KaLCTNFEV3cyHbXWZ8pM2fSRKVp_9=DBNkE7Tw6FJ9g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 9 May 2017 12:02:52 +0200
From:   Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@...aro.org>
To:     SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Cc:     Sean Paul <seanpaul@...omium.org>,
        "dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Fabien Dessenne <fabien.dessenne@...com>,
        Vincent Abriou <vincent.abriou@...com>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: GPU-DRM-STI: Fine-tuning for some function implementations

2017-05-09 10:03 GMT+02:00 Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@...aro.org>:
> 2017-05-06 19:00 GMT+02:00 SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>:
>>>> 1. I suggest to combine a few functions into fewer ones.
>>>>    * Do you spot any programming mistakes in these concrete cases?
>>>
>>> Not in the patches I skimmed.
>>
>> Thanks for such feedback.
>>
>>
>>> However, your history of breaking code tells me that there have been mistakes
>>> missed in the past.
>>
>> I admit that I had my own share of software development hiccups. I would also
>> like to reduce them. But a probability remains that I will stumble on
>> various glitches as usual.
>>
>>
>>> As such, I'm not willing to take untested code from you that does not change
>>> functionality at the risk of breaking something that is currently working.
>>
>> I imagine that the shown software refactoring will improve the affected
>> sequence outputs in useful ways, won't it?
>>
>>
>>> This is non-negotiable.
>>
>> It seems that we have got different views around the ways to get to acceptable
>> final system test results.
>>
>>
>>> As I said before, if you test it, I'll consider it.
>
> As sti driver maintainer I will test those patches.
> If their are ok and get some other reviewed/ack I will use them
> for myself training on how push patches in drm-misc.
>
> Benjamin

After testing:
Acked-by: Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@...aro.org>

>
>>
>> I got a few doubts for this information. If you find my software development
>> reputation so questionable, I assume that you would not trust any tests
>> that I would try out on my own.
>>
>>
>>> If you are unwilling to test your changes, I'm unwilling to apply them.
>>
>> I guess that the desired willingness will depend on a test environment
>> which will be trusted by all involved parties. Other incentives might
>> also matter.
>>
>>
>>> I'm not interested in double checking all of your work, and fixing your bugs
>>> for no functional benefit.
>>
>> Do you care for improvements in the implementation of logging functions?
>>
>>
>>> I find less value in these patches if they're from someone seemingly
>>> trying to rack up patch count.
>>
>> I am picking special source code search patterns up.
>> The evolving development tools can point then hundreds of source files
>> out which contain similar update candidates.
>> I found also a few spelling weaknesses while I was looking around
>> in affected source code. These tools can also increase the awareness
>> for such change possibilities, can't they?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Markus