linux-kernel - Re: [greybus-dev] [PATCH v4] staging: greybus: Convert uart.c from IDR to XArray

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: <794b3ff8-0240-ff14-8721-cdf510f52be3@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 1 Sep 2021 07:09:16 -0500
From:   Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>
To:     "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>,
        Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Alex Elder <elder@...nel.org>, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, greybus-dev@...ts.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [greybus-dev] [PATCH v4] staging: greybus: Convert uart.c from
 IDR to XArray

On 8/31/21 6:50 AM, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> I was wrong in assuming that trivial patches to Greybus are welcome as they 
> are for other drivers.

This is not a correct statement.

But as Johan pointed out, even for a trivial patch if you
must understand the consequences of what the change does.
If testing is not possible, you must work extra hard to
ensure your patch is correct.

In the first (or an early) version of your patch I pointed
out a bug.  Later, I suggested
 the lock might not be necessary
and asked you to either confirm
 it was or explain why it was
not, but you didn't do that.

I agree that the change appeared trivial, and even sensible,
but even trivial patches must result in correct code.  And
all patches should have good and complete explanations.

					-Alex