linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3]ipmi:bt-bmc:Avoid unnecessary judgement

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: <20200413142348.GD3587@minyard.net>
Date:   Mon, 13 Apr 2020 09:23:48 -0500
From:   Corey Minyard <minyard@....org>
To:     Tang Bin <tangbin@...s.chinamobile.com>
Cc:     arnd@...db.de, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        openipmi-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3]ipmi:bt-bmc:Avoid unnecessary judgement

On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 07:56:44PM +0800, Tang Bin wrote:
> Hi, Corey:
> 
> On 2020/4/13 19:32, Corey Minyard wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 07:59:58PM +0800, Tang Bin wrote:
> > > bt_bmc_probe() is only called with an openfirmware platform device.
> > > Therefore there is no need to check that the passed in device is NULL or
> > > that it has an openfirmware node.
> > I waited until after the merge window closed, this is queued for 5.8.
> Can I consider that the patch will be applied in 5.8？

It's in my queue, so that's the plan.

> >   I
> > changed the title to be "Avoid unnecessary check".
> You have modified it, which means I don't need to submit a new patch？

Correct.

> >   "Judgement",
> > although technically correct, has a legal or moral connotation.
> 
> I'm sorry, I won't use that word again.

It's not a problem.  English is a language with a lot of things like
this.

-corey

> 
> 
> Thanks for your instruction.
> 
> Tang Bin
> 
> > 
> 
>