> The only evidence I see is a long thread of similar patches from
> the last several months, of varying (though not increasing) quality.
I find it acceptable that some of my update suggestions do not fit
to your quality expectations at the moment.
> Prior objections to your approach were met wi
Replying, against my better judgment...
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 2:00 PM, SF Markus Elfring
wrote:
>> Now, have *you* learned anything from this approach?
>
> Yes, of course. ;-)
Do you have any evidence of this? Details? The only evidence I see is
a long thread of similar patches from the last
> Now, have *you* learned anything from this approach?
Yes, of course. ;-)
How would we like to tackle any corresponding software development challenges?
Regards,
Markus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 08:07:34PM +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> I published scripts for static source code analysis in March 2004.
^^ That would be March 2014, not March 2004.
> > I didn't ask "when?"; where?
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/5/356
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.ve
>> I published scripts for static source code analysis in March 2004.
>
> I didn't ask "when?"; where?
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/5/356
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.coccinelle/3513/
https://systeme.lip6.fr/pipermail/cocci/2014-March/000676.html
Do you get further ideas f
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 09:20:47PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> The sparc iounmap() implementation in arch/sparc/kernel/ioport.c looks
> it prints an error message if you pass a NULL pointer.
Seems that way. Thanks.
Nak to the patch then.
Brian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "u
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 07:19:34PM +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > Anyway, I'm essentially saying that I'd like to be 100% sure we have a
> > guarantee before dropping all these.
>
> You can not be absolutely sure. There are various implementation details
> which will eventually need further c
The sparc iounmap() implementation in arch/sparc/kernel/ioport.c looks
it prints an error message if you pass a NULL pointer.
regards,
dan carpenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info
> Anyway, I'm essentially saying that I'd like to be 100% sure we have a
> guarantee before dropping all these.
You can not be absolutely sure. There are various implementation details
which will eventually need further considerations.
I hope that a reasonable confidence can be achieved here.
>
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 06:08:12PM +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> From: Markus Elfring
> Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 17:30:23 +0100
>
> The iounmap() function performs also input parameter validation.
> Thus the test around the call is not needed.
Is this guaranteed for all arch'es? I expect that
From: Markus Elfring
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 17:30:23 +0100
The iounmap() function performs also input parameter validation.
Thus the test around the call is not needed.
This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring
---
drivers/mtd/maps/latch-addr-flas
11 matches
Mail list logo
