linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 15/19] staging: r8188eu: hal: Clean up usbctrl

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: <3504293.VdliR8Xgxp@localhost.localdomain>
Date:   Wed, 15 Sep 2021 16:59:03 +0200
From:   "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:     Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
        Philip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@...il.com>,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        David Laight <david.Laight@...lab.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 15/19] staging: r8188eu: hal: Clean up usbctrl_vendorreq()

On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 3:53:01 PM CEST Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 02:41:45PM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > Clean up usbctrl_vendoreq () in usb_ops_linux.c. Eventually this function
> > will be deleted but some of the code will be reused later. This cleanup
> > makes code reuse easier.
> >
> Thanks for removing the URL.  This commit message is no longer bad to
> the point where it has to be redone but it's still not great.
> 
> I explicitly told you to leave the irrelevant information out.  I'm
> trying to help you and it's frustrating that you're not listening.  I
> wish that you had just copy and pasted the commit message which I sent.

I'm sorry, seriously. It's hard to listen carefully when I need to do my 
*real* work while trying my best to contribute to the kernel. Sometimes I'm 
so tired that I forget something important or what it is said by reviewers. I 
know that this is not a good excuse, anyway please don't ever think that I 
don't mind of the time you spend on reviews and writing suggestions. 

> This relates the discussion we had about reviewing patches one at a time
> in the order they arrive.  Every patch should be self contained.  It
> should not refer to the past except in the case of explaining the Fixes
> tag and it should not refer to the future except in the case where it
> needs to excuse adding unused infrastructure.  Reviewing is stateless.
> We don't want to know about your plans.
> 
> On the other hand, the commit message doesn't list the changes the
> commit makes as part of the clean up process.  That would have been
> helpful information for me as a reviewer.
> 
> *Sigh*  Whatever...  I would have allowed this commit message but there
> is a bug in the code.
> 
> > +				memcpy(data, io_buf,  len);
> > +		} else {
> > +			/* errors */
> >  			if (status < 0) {
> > -				if (status == (-ESHUTDOWN) || 
status == -ENODEV) {
> > +				if (status == (-ESHUTDOWN || -
ENODEV)) {
> 
> This is a bug so you'll have to redo the patch.

This is the proof of what I was trying to convey with the words above. I 
perfectly knew, since days, that this line is wrong but for some reason that 
I really cannot understand why it's still there.

Thank you very much,

Fabio

> regards,
> dan carpenter
>