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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200115223845.GI32742@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Jan 2020 00:38:45 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
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 06:21:06PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> 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 :)

Done in v2.


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko