netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/2] rtl8xxxu: Fix for bogus data used to determine macpower

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <wrfjh97i11vw.fsf@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 08 Nov 2016 09:29:07 -0500
From:   Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@...hat.com>
To:     Dave Jones <s.dave.jones@...il.com>
Cc:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, John Heenan <john@...s.com>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] rtl8xxxu: Fix for bogus data used to determine macpower

Dave Jones <s.dave.jones@...il.com> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 09:56:00AM -0400, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>>
>> Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> writes:
>> > On Sun, 2016-10-30 at 19:02 -0400, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>> >> Code is 80 characters wide, and comments are /* */ never the ugly C++
>> >> crap.
>> >
>> > You might look at the recent Linus Torvalds authored commit
>> > 5e467652ffef (?printk: re-organize log_output() to be more legible")
>> > which does both of those: c99 // comments and > 80 columns.
>> >
>> > Absolutes are for zealots.
>>
>> What Linus does in his code, is totally up to him. What I pull into the
>> driver that *I* maintain, is up to me. It is perfectly normal to expect
>> submitters to respect the coding style of the piece of code they are
>> trying to edit.
>
> Bullshit.  It's perfectly normal to respect Linux coding style described in
> Documentation/CodingStyle.  Now let's back to the topic, could you
> apply John's patch or you just wanna improve your driver is 100% bug free?

First of all, I call for proper CodingStyle to be applied to my driver,
and I expect someone posting a patch to respect the codingstyle of the
driver in question. It is simple respect for the code. If you consider
that BS - that is on you!

Second I am NOT applying that patch as I have stated repeatedly because
I am not convinced it is safe to do so and it changes the code flow for
one type of chip and not the rest. In addition it uses a broken approach
to doing chip specific changes.

In short, the patch is broken!

Jes