--- On Mon, 11/8/10, Luben Tuikov <[email protected]> wrote:
> --- On Mon, 11/8/10, Luben Tuikov
> <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > --- On Mon, 11/8/10, Matthew Wilcox
> > <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 01:22:22PM
> > > -0700, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> > > > "Be conservative in what you send, liberal
> in
> > what
> > > > you accept." -- In the spirit of this
> adage,
> > don't
> > > > send Command IUs with randomly filled in
> data in
> > > > the reserved fields. (Yes, this shows up on
> the
> > > > wire.)
> > >
> > > Applied, with a better changelog entry ...
> >
> > "Better"? Where did you apply it? Your willy/uas.git
> > doesn't show it (updated 3 months ago), neither do
> Greg's.
> >
> > BTW, is it customary to change the change log?? What
> > did you change? Do you mind sharing?
>
> Matthew, could you reply-all here with your new, changed
> and
> modified change log?
>
> I'd like you to be accountable to what and how you've
> changed the changelog HERE and not in a git three somewhere
> and have an open comparison to what your new change log is
> and what is says.
>
> Mine, quoted above:
> ? a) mentions an adage that's been around for 30 years
> at least,
> ? ???in the UNIX/net field to which we
> adhere.
> ? b) mentions (only!) the Command IU of making out on
> the wire
> ? ???with stale system data of the
> memory used for it.
>
> Could you please reconsider your professional integrity
> and
> submit the patch as is with the original log?
Matthew,
I did NOT Signed-off-by: with my name and email to a patch where you've changed both the change log and the diff.
Now, you have two options here:
a) commit the modified by you patches, {change log and diff}, AS YOUR OWN patches, removing the Signed-off-by: me line, OR
b) commit the patch, {change log and diff}, as I've posted it, thus preserving the Signed-off-by: me line.
A Signed-off-by: line is a digital signature, and we cannot have that under text (the change log) that that person didn't write or agree to.
I don't mind either a) or b), but if a) then we need to include this practice of changing the patch {change log and diff} by the maintainer and removing the Signed-off-by: line of the author of the patch in Documentation/development-process/ so that contributors to the kernel are aware of this practice.
>
> > > > @@ -660,7 +660,7 @@ static int
> uas_probe(struct
> > > usb_interface *intf, const struct usb_device_id
> *id)
> > > >? ??? ???
> > > ??? return -ENODEV;
> > > >? ??? }
> > > >?
> > > > -??? devinfo = kmalloc(sizeof(struct
> > > uas_dev_info), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > +??? devinfo = kzalloc(sizeof(struct
> > > uas_dev_info), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > >? ??? if (!devinfo)
> > > >? ??? ??? return
> > > -ENOMEM;
> > > >?
> > >
> > > Except for this hunk, which isn't an IU and
> doesn't go
> > out
> > > on the wire.
> >
> > Lol, no of course it doesn't, silly!
>
> And notice that /my/ change log doesn't claim that
> uas_dev_info makes it out the wire. It only mentions that
> the Command IU makes it out the wire with stale data.
>
> >
> > So help us understand: You've preserved all changes
> from
> > kmalloc->kzalloc and left a single kmalloc alone.
> And
> > your reason is that "*This* one doesn't go out on the
> > wire?"
> >
> > Wouldn't if have been more consistent (and harmless)
> to
> > have changed all of them, just as the patch did?
> >
> >
>