linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] tty: baudrate: Synchronise baud_table[] and baud

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: <20200115172106.GA4127163@kroah.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Jan 2020 18:21:06 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] tty: baudrate: Synchronise baud_table[] and
 baud_bits[]

On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 06:33:27PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 06:27:56PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 07:09:17PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > Synchronize baud rate tables for better readability.
> > 
> > "Synchronize"?  With what?
> 
> Between each other. This SPARC thingy makes it's harder to follow.

Ok, be more specific please, a better changelog is key here.

> > Why?  I'm all for cleaning up code, but this
> > just seems totally gratuitous.
> 
> Btw, while doing it I found that SPARC actually supports more baud rates than
> defined in those arrays. Without this patch I would not (easily) notice that.
> Should I also attach another patch and resend?

Yes, that might justify this patch's acceptance :)

thanks,

greg k-h