netdev - Re: [PULL] topic/e1000e-fix

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: <20170531.110833.1362264472730468352.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Wed, 31 May 2017 11:08:33 -0400 (EDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     daniel.vetter@...ll.ch
Cc:     airlied@...il.com, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com,
        jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PULL] topic/e1000e-fix

From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 08:10:45 +0200

> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:06 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com> wrote:
>>> On 31 May 2017 at 08:10, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>>>> From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>
>>>> Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 22:15:42 +0200
>>>>
>>>>> If the e1000e maintainer wants to coalesce or not return statements
>>>>> this simple way, that's imo on him to change the color as needed.
>>>>
>>>> That's not how things work.
>>>>
>>>> If the maintainer wants you to style things a certain way, either you
>>>> do it that way or your patch isn't accepted.
>>
>> Consider this pull a regression report, pls handle it.
> 
> And I guess I pile of more cc, to make this regression report
> complete. I mean you got the backtrace, bisect and a proposed fix, and
> the almost-whitespace change demanded is something gcc does in its
> sleep. I'd understand a request to retest if it would be a real
> functional change, but in this situation I have no idea why this
> regression just can't be fixed already.

And we can't understand why respinning with the requested change is
less work than making several postings such as this one.