linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] resource: add walk_system_ram_res

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]

Date:   Thu, 26 Apr 2018 13:09:05 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
To:     Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
        nicolas.pitre@...aro.org, josh@...htriplett.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>,
        Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] resource: add walk_system_ram_res_rev()

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 04:56:49PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> Sorry for that, I just ran scripts/get_maintainer.pl to get expert's
> name and added them into each patch. The reason this change is made is
> in patch 3/3. Test robot reported a code bug on the latest kernel, will
> repost and CC everyone in all patches.
> 
> 
> Rob Herring asked the same question in v2, I explained to him. The
> discussion can be found here:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/4/10/484

... and when I open that link, the first paragraph says:

"This is the explanation I made when Andrew helped to review the v1 post:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/23/78"

Do you see the absurdity of the link chasing of your explanation?!

Instead, the explanation *WHY* should be in the commit message of the
patch - not in mail replies when people ask you about it.

Also, do not use lkml.org when referencing a mail on lkml but
use the Message-ID of the header. We have a proper redirector at
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/<Message-ID>

Now lemme read the reason finally...

"We need unify these two interfaces on behaviour since they are the same
on essense from the users' point of view... "

That's not a good enough reason for me to cause code churn. If the only
reason is: because the one does it top-down and the other bottom-up, I'm
not convinced.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
--