lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jul]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH, RESEND 03/14] drm/vmwgfx: avoid gcc-7 parentheses warning
    On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 10:28:29PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
    > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Linus Torvalds
    > <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
    > > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Linus Torvalds
    > > <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> NAK. This takes unintentionally insane code and turns it intentionally
    > >> insane. Any non-zero return is considered an error.
    > >>
    > >> The right fix is almost certainly to just return -EINVAL unconditionally.

    Correct. I'll fix this.

    > >
    > > Btw, this is why I hate compiler warning fix patch series. Even when
    > > they don't actually break the code (and sometimes they do that too),
    > > they can actually end up making the code worse.
    >
    > I generally agree, and this is also why I held up sending patches for the
    > -Wformat warnings until you brought those up. I also frequently send
    > patches for recently introduced warnings, which tend to have a better
    > chance of getting reviewed by the person that just introduced the code,
    > to catch this kind of mistake in my patches.
    >
    > I also regularly run into cases where I send a correct patch and find
    > that another broken patch has been applied the following day ;-)
    >
    > > The *intent* of that code was to return zero for the CAP_SYS_ADMIN.
    > > But the code has never done that in its lifetime and nobody ever
    > > noticed, so clearly the code shouldn't even have tried.
    >
    > Makes sense, yes. In this case, the review process has failed as
    > well, as one of the maintainers even gave an Ack on the wrong patch,
    > and then the patch got dropped without any feedback.

    I've done some digging and noticed that my -fixes pull request
    didn't get picked up last December. It's most likely because I
    initially made an address typo in the original request, and then
    followed it up with a direct email with the correct address.

    Sinclair


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2017-07-17 15:17    [W:6.789 / U:0.204 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site