Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 15 Jan 2014 09:39:52 -0800 | From | David Cohen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: intel-mid: sfi_handle_*_dev() should check for pdata error code |
| |
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 07:58:37AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * David Cohen <david.a.cohen@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > Hi Ingo, > > > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 09:49:53AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > * David Cohen <david.a.cohen@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Prevent sfi_handle_*_dev() to register device in case > > > > intel_mid_sfi_get_pdata() failed to execute. > > > > > > > > Since 'NULL' is a valid return value, this patch makes > > > > sfi_handle_*_dev() functions to use IS_ERR() to validate returned pdata. > > > > > > Is this bug triggering in practice? If not then please say so in the > > > changelog. If yes then is this patch desired for v3.13 merging and > > > also please fix the changelog to conform to the standard changelog > > > style: > > > > > > - first describe the symptoms of the bug - how does a user notice? > > > > > > - then describe how the code behaves today and how that is causing > > > the bug > > > > > > - and then only describe how it's fixed. > > > > > > The first item is the most important one - while developers > > > (naturally) tend to concentrate on the least important point, the last > > > one. > > > > Thanks for the feedback :) > > This new patch set was done in reply to your comment: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/12/20/517 > > Hm, in what way does the new changelog address my first request: > > > > - first describe the symptoms of the bug - how does a user notice? > > They are all phrased as bug fixes, yet _none_ of the three changelogs > appears to describe specific symptoms on specific systems - they all > seem to talk in the abstract, with no specific connection to reality. > > That really makes it harder for patches to get into the (way too > narrow) attention span of maintainersm, while phrasing it like this: > > 'If an Intel-MID system boots in a specific SFI environment then it > will hang on bootup without this fix.' > > or: > > 'Existing Intel-MID hardware will run faster with this patch.' > > will certainly wake up maintainers like a good coffee in the morning. > > If a patch is a cleanup with no known bug fix effects then say so in > the title and the changelog.
Fair enough. These patches are fixing a potential bug that exists in current kernel, but I triggered with patches in my development tree that depends on this one to be refactored first: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/3109791/
I tried to describe the potential bug, but it lacks the real use case as you pointed out. I'll resend the patches in a way to trigger and describe the situation without dependiing on non-upstreamed patches yet. And I'll hurry up to publish my intel mid devel tree as well.
I hope the new patch set tastes like good morning Brazilian coffee :)
Br, David Cohen
> > Thanks, > > Ingo
| |