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

Message-ID: <CAKMK7uGbi2Bwfno9XogKZ-LUOyMepbtRyGuGrNYWwj6Cts+uag@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 May 2017 08:10:45 +0200
From:   Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>
To:     Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org" <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
        intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PULL] topic/e1000e-fix

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.

Not sure if it's really preferred if regression reports come
incomplete, without bugfix and bisect attached.
-Daniel

>> I'm not really sure why Chris just couldn't respin already.
>>
>> Though really I think Chris should have just asked for a revert of the
>> original patch that broke stuff, instead of trying to patch a driver
>> if he doesn't have time to get the patch right for the maintainer.
>
> Ok, can we pls revert 2800209994f8 ("e1000e: Refactor PM flows") then?
>
> Thanks, Daniel
> --
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch



-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch