linux-kernel - Re: omapfb/dss: Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation in three functions

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: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711281025210.3443@hadrien>
Date:   Tue, 28 Nov 2017 10:26:00 +0100 (CET)
From:   Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To:     SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
cc:     linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        "Andrew F. Davis" <afd@...com>,
        Arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@...il.com>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
        Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: omapfb/dss: Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation
 in three functions



On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, SF Markus Elfring wrote:

> >>>> It seems that I got no responses so far for clarification requests
> >>>> according to the documentation in a direction I hoped for.
> >>>
> >>> That's because you are pretty unresponsive to direction.
> >>
> >> From which places did you get this impression?
> >
> > Perhaps from the text that you have written only four lines below.
> > All comments are dismissed as "the usual mixture of disagreements and acceptance".
>
> A mixture will always evolve.
>
> * Some acceptance might not need further considerations.
>
> * But the disagreements are remembered differently.
>   They have got a potential for further improvements in some areas.
>
>
> > If you look at the patches sent by others, who learn from
> > the feedback provided to them,
>
> I am also learning to some degree continuously.
>
>
> > there are not so many responses on the disagreements side.
>
> How do you think about to look at the details for such an observation?
>
>
> > So the mixture is not usual.
>
> I find that it can be also a matter of statistics.
>
>
> > Since you send lots of patches on the same issues,
>
> Yes. - I am trying to fix some implementation details by the means
> of source code analysis and corresponding transformation.
> The patch count is still growing.
>
>
> > there should be no disagreements at all at this point.
>
> I got an other impression. The probability for disagreements is increasing
> in relation to the number of contributors to which I show change possibilities.

No.  You should learn from the previous submissions what concerns people
have and address them up front.

julia

>
> There are also other open issues remaining which can get another
> solution somehow.
>
> Regards,
> Markus
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>