linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

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: <35ed6501-3b26-36a9-d332-d4ed3366ebd8@axentia.se>
Date:   Tue, 28 Jan 2020 21:45:24 +0000
From:   Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
To:     Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
        Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
CC:     "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org" <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

On 2020-01-27 13:08, Colin Ian King wrote:
> On 27/01/2020 12:05, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:03:02PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
>>> On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote:
>>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
>>>>
>>>> There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove
>>>> the extraneous tab.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> V2: fix type in commit message
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +-
>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>> index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>> @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c)
>>>>  		xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET);
>>>>  		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
>>>>  			dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n");
>>>> -				return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>>> +			return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>>>  		}
>>>>  	}
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>
>>> As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch
>>> subject")
>>>
>>
>> It's not really a bugfix, it's just a cleanup.
> 
> I'm surprised i wasn't asked for a bug number too.

Very funny.

I realize that you, the three complainers (Johan, Dan and Colin), together
have almost 10000 commits. So, I feel a bit outranked.

However, this ridicule is unfair.

The problem here is that Colin sent a v2, ignoring my suggestion to add
a fixes-tag without mentioning that my suggestion was in fact ignored
(and why). That is a sure way to invite someone else to point out what
seemed like an omission. Which happened. And then this farce ensued.

So, Colin, take a long look in the mirror and direct your sarcasm in
whatever direction you feel appropriate.

I also maintain that noone writes code like this on purpose (at least
not without some ulterior motive). This is the kind of stuff that cause
problems and wastes time later when someone mis-reads the code. You three
people, with all those commits, should know that. My point is that this
is more than just cleanup and is indeed fixing a bug. Claiming otherwise
is just silly. The compiler is not the only consumer of the code.

Cheers,
Peter