linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCHv2] Fixing POSIX wait queue to insert in task priority order for real-time, including normal tasks

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: <20171211143049.vybmzlxi3vy2q5gy@home.goodmis.org>
Date:   Mon, 11 Dec 2017 09:30:49 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Jonathan Haws <jhaws@....usu.edu>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCHv2] Fixing POSIX wait queue to insert in task
 priority order for real-time, including normal tasks

OK, when I said to Cc the kernel mailing list, I should have said that you
also need to still Cc everyone you want to read it. LKML gets over 600+ emails
a day. Nobody reads it all. Some people filter it, but others (like myself)
stopped reading it because I can barely keep up with just the emails I'm Cc'd
on.

The only reason I found this email is because I was going through my older
email, noticed that I haven't seen another patch from you, and realized that
you may have misunderstood what I meant by Ccing LKML. My fault for not being
clear. Sorry about that.

To know who to Cc, use "scripts/get_maintainer.pl" on your patch. But since
this is a RT issue, it is good to include the RT maintainers as well.

Next, the subject should have a topic in it. If you look at other changes in
the file you changed, you can usually figure it out. For example, looking at
other changes in ipc/mqueue.c, I see "ipc: mqueue:" which you can add to you
subject. That's because we want to know what commits are for what, when doing
git logs, especially one liner log output.

The subject should be a bit shorter. It should try to stay under 76 characters
(subtracting the "[RFC][PATCH*]"). 

Your subject is a little confusing. And you have zero change log. The subject
can be what you are doing, but write a change log to describe why you are
doing it. Don't be afraid to put in how you came about what you discovered. A
year from now, when someone is looking at this code, and does a git blame to
see why things are the way they are, it's good to know what the developer was
thinking for why they made the change. That way, the code can be modified if
circumstances change for why the code is the way it is. But without knowing
why changes were done, new updates may not be made out of fear for breaking
something they don't understand.

-- Steve

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 06:15:32PM -0700, Jonathan Haws wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Haws <jhaws@....usu.edu>
> ---
>  ipc/mqueue.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/ipc/mqueue.c b/ipc/mqueue.c
> index 9649ecd..cb96db9 100644
> --- a/ipc/mqueue.c
> +++ b/ipc/mqueue.c
> @@ -546,7 +546,7 @@ static void wq_add(struct mqueue_inode_info *info, int sr,
>  	ewp->task = current;
>  
>  	list_for_each_entry(walk, &info->e_wait_q[sr].list, list) {
> -		if (walk->task->static_prio <= current->static_prio) {
> +		if (walk->task->prio <= current->prio) {
>  			list_add_tail(&ewp->list, &walk->list);
>  			return;
>  		}
> -- 
> 2.7.4