linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] hwmon: da9063: HWMON driver

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]

Date:   Wed, 7 Jul 2021 23:28:34 +0000
From:   Vincent Pelletier <plr.vincent@...il.com>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:     Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Support Opensource <support.opensource@...semi.com>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Opensource [Steve Twiss]" <stwiss.opensource@...semi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] hwmon: da9063: HWMON driver

On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 17:58:00 -0700, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 12:20:45AM +0000, Vincent Pelletier wrote:
> > On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 10:42:01 -0700, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:  
> > > > +	/* set trim temperature offset to value read at startup */
> > > > +	hwmon->tjunc_offset = (signed char)hwmon->da9063->t_offset;    
> > > 
> > > Can you explain why this is read in and passed from the mfd driver
> > > and not here ?  
> > 
> > I cannot, at least not with something other than "this is how I found
> > the code", which I realise is not satisfactory.
> > I've been holding back on changes as I felt constrained by preserving
> > the original author's name on the changes (both Author and
> > Signed-off-by), but this split was indeed bothering me.
> >   
> Sorry, that is not a good argument. On the contrary, if I have to assume
> that the code has non-technical constraints, I am inclined to just reject
> it for that very reason.

These constraints are self-imposed and authorship-motivated: I do not
want to steal credit, and I do not know where the "why did you remove
my name from this ?" threshold is.

So if I am unsure whether a slightly surprising (to my untrained eyes)
but not broken piece of code is actually usual or should be changed, I
erred on the status-quo side in order to make a good-faith effort at
preserving the original author's name on the change.

So in turn, your suggestion to change the Signed-off-by into an
Originally-from removed these constraints.

Is this formulation clearer ?
-- 
Vincent Pelletier
GPG fingerprint 983A E8B7 3B91 1598 7A92 3845 CAC9 3691 4257 B0C1