Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0254/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro | From | Doug Ledford <> | Date | Tue, 02 Aug 2016 11:44:15 -0400 |
| |
On Tue, 2016-08-02 at 10:20 -0500, Steve Wise wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 09:12:54AM -0500, Steve Wise wrote: > > > > > > Acked-by: Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com> > > > > > > > I have to ask, why did you ack all these? There's several things > > wrong with > > this patch series, but even the point of the patch is mistaken. It > > makes > > readable code much less readable. When you chmod a file, do you > > type > > > > chmod 0444 file > > > > or do you write > > > > chmod S_IRUSR|S_IRGRP|S_IROTH file > > > > ? > > > > Which of the above is easier to figure what is being changed? > > > > I assumed this was some global "fix up".
It is, but I'm not so sure I don't agree with Steve. I'm not sure this actually makes things better. At a minimum, I would argue that Bart's fix is mandatory before they would get my ack. I would also request that even though the patches are split up for review, they be squashed on commit (whoever would want to tackle this monstrous pile of dubious janitorial stuff).
> > > > Not to mention, because the subject is the same for all 1285 > > patches, and you > > deleted the content of the patch in your ack, there's no way to > > know what > > exactly this ack is for (I haven't received the original patch yet > > because > > it's probably being ratelimited by some mail server). > > > > I acked just the single patches that hit cxgb3/cxgb4. But if this is > really > garbage, then ignore my ACKs... > > Steve. >
-- Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com> GPG KeyID: 0E572FDD [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |