linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: pxa: pxa2xx: Remove 'pxa2xx_pinctrl

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: <c925d033cf566743a1f6255da7843d1b85451d2f.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Thu, 04 Jun 2020 11:02:23 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
        Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@...e.fr>,
        Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>,
        Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...il.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: pxa: pxa2xx: Remove 'pxa2xx_pinctrl_exit()'
 which is unused and broken

On Thu, 2020-06-04 at 20:35 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 09:08:44AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Thu, 2020-06-04 at 15:30 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 01:42:12PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > > OK, I recall a discussion with Dan where he suggested that some things
> > > > that were not actually bug fixes could also merit a Fixes tag.  But it's
> > > > probably better if he weighs in directly.
> > > 
> > > I generally think Fixes should only be used for "real bug" fixes.
> > > 
> > > The one exception is when I'm reviewing a patch that fixes an "unused
> > > assignment" static checker warning is that I know which commit
> > > introduced the warning.

Sometimes those warnings are introduced by new compiler
versions.

That's why I don't care for -Werror use in Makefiles.

> > > I don't have strong feelings if it's in the
> > > Fixes tag or if it's just mentioned in the commit message.
> > 
> > My view is that changes that silence compiler warnings are
> > not fixing bugs and that these changes should generally not
> > be backported.
> > 
> The Fixes tag is useful for backports but that's not whole the point of
> it.  It's also for collecting metrics.

Hmm, how are these metrics used?

> Also sometimes we fix the bug
> before the kernel is released so the Fixes tag means we can automatically
> ignore those ones when we look at which patches to backport.
> 
> I don't care if the "unused assignment" patches use a Fixes tag or just
> mention the commit.  Either way the information is there for when I
> review the patch.

Perhaps there could/should be some distinction between
"real bug" fixes and trivialities like "unused assignment"

Maybe something like:
	Updates: <commit> ("commit description")
vs
	Fixes: <commit> ("commit description")