netdev - Re: [PATCH 19/20] drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/skge.c: fix error return code

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: <20121004.142335.1467206545795435493.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Thu, 04 Oct 2012 14:23:35 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	peter.senna@...il.com
Cc:	shemminger@...tta.com, mlindner@...vell.com,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/20] drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/skge.c: fix error
 return code

From: Peter Senna Tschudin <peter.senna@...il.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 19:32:12 +0200

> I can't understand the advantages of describing each patch as you are
> asking. "For me" the generic commit message together with the patch
> makes sense.  Can you please help me on that?

Stop being so dense.

We want to know the implications of the bug being fixed.

Does it potentially cause an OOPS?  Bad reference counting and thus
potential leaks or early frees?

You have to analyze the implications and ramifications of the bug
being fixed.  We need that information.

Your commit messages are in fact robotic, they don't describe the
salient details of what kinds of problems the bug being fixed might
cause.

It's just "bad error code, this is the script that fixed it, kthx,
bye" which is pretty much useless for anaylsis.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html