linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 06/18] m68k: Replace setup_irq() by request

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:   Sun, 1 Mar 2020 14:26:33 +1100 (AEDT)
From:   Finn Thain <fthain@...egraphics.com.au>
To:     afzal mohammed <afzal.mohd.ma@...il.com>
cc:     linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Greg Ungerer <gerg@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/18] m68k: Replace setup_irq() by request_irq()

On Sun, 1 Mar 2020, afzal mohammed wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 01, 2020 at 10:11:51AM +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> > On Sat, 29 Feb 2020, afzal mohammed wrote:
> 
> > > [...] 
> > > Specific to m68k, following changes has been made based on m68 family
> > > ;) feedback,
> > > 
> > 
> > None of my comments were specific to any architecture.
> 
> One thing i had in my background, but realize now that didn't express 
> anywhere in my mails, in essence what Geert mentioned, i.e. being legacy 
> code, i did not give a treatment that would have been given to adding 
> new code.
> 
> But m68k subthread has been a very lively one and as not many changes, 
> felt it was not fair from my side not to handle almost as though it is a 
> new code addition.
> 

I took Geert's comments to be architecture agnostic but perhaps I 
misunderstood.

BTW, how do you distinguish between "new code" and "legacy code"?

And why would you choose to do that when you are writing a tree-wide 
semantic patch?