Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755497Ab2JDSyY (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Oct 2012 14:54:24 -0400 Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:44791 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751691Ab2JDSyX (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Oct 2012 14:54:23 -0400 Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 14:54:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <20121004.145419.1859367129463136197.davem@davemloft.net> To: peter.senna@gmail.com Cc: shemminger@vyatta.com, mlindner@marvell.com, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/20] drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/skge.c: fix error return code From: David Miller In-Reply-To: References: <20121004.142335.1467206545795435493.davem@davemloft.net> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.5 on Emacs 24.1 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2015 Lines: 52 From: Peter Senna Tschudin Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 20:49:57 +0200 > On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 8:23 PM, David Miller wrote: >> From: Peter Senna Tschudin >> Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 19:32:12 +0200 >> >>> I can't understand the advantages of describing each patch as you are >>> asking. "For me" the generic commit message together with the patch >>> makes sense. Can you please help me on that? >> >> Stop being so dense. >> >> We want to know the implications of the bug being fixed. >> >> Does it potentially cause an OOPS? Bad reference counting and thus >> potential leaks or early frees? >> >> You have to analyze the implications and ramifications of the bug >> being fixed. We need that information. >> >> Your commit messages are in fact robotic, they don't describe the >> salient details of what kinds of problems the bug being fixed might >> cause. >> >> It's just "bad error code, this is the script that fixed it, kthx, >> bye" which is pretty much useless for anaylsis. > > Thank you David. > > What about this as commit message? > --- // -- > This patch fixes bug(s) related to return value of function(s). In > some error cases, the function is returning non-negative SUCCESS > value, when the correct would be negative ERROR value. > > When on error, returning non negatives values, or SUCCESS, breaks error > propagation, producing unpredictable behavior that are very difficult > to debug. > --- // -- What does it potentially cause the caller to do? Will it potentially treat an error as a success and as a result register an object illegally? Real analysis please. The text you provided above is basically still robotic and could be used to describe any error code return fix. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/