[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87h8udj4p7.fsf@xmission.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2017 12:20:52 -0500
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
tycho@...ho.ws, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] userns: Don't read extents twice in m_start
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> writes:
> On Wed, 2017-11-01 at 06:08 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> I won't listen to checkpatch when it is wrong.
>
> Always a good idea.
>
> btw: what is checkpatch wrong about this time?
Well the way I was hearing the conversation was that there was a patch
that fixed a real bug, but it was wrong because checkpatch complained
about it.
So I don't even know if the warning is a problem. But blocking bug
fixes because there is a warning certainly is.
If someone wants to change coding style in practice so that every
smp_rmb and every smp_wmb has detailed comments that everyone must
include they need to follow the usual rule and update the entire kernel
when making an interface change. As that did not happen I don't see
any problems with incremental updates in the style the code is already
in.
Not that I will mind a patch that updates the code, but I am not going
to hold up a perfectly good bug fix waiting for one either.
Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists