Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:51:53 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 000000000000000e (reset_prng_context) |
| |
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:33:12 +0800 Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 09:25:49PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:07:01 +0800 Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 03:11:10PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > > > > Except that such a high density of coding-style errors is an indication > > > > that the code was not closely and critically reviewed by an experienced > > > > kernel developer. > > > > > > > > > Every damn single warning in this case is about whitespace or 80 column limit. > > > > > > > > > > Every damn single one! > > > > > > Indeed, I apologise for reviewing the code on a monitor that is wider > > > than yours. If only we could make sure that all Linux developers > > > used smaller monitors then the code quality would surely improve! > > > > > > > Remaining within 80 cols is a big deal indeed for those who choose to > > use, or who are forced to use 80-col displays. Try resizing to 70 cols > > for a while, see how you get on. > > Sure, I totally understand the 80-column requirement and support > it too. > > However, I fail to see how one could draw the conclusion that a > piece of code that breaks the 80-column rule has not been closely > or critically reviewed.
I said "indication". I came to no conclusion.
And I agree with me. I fail to see how someone who is familiar with kernel code and who is reviewing a submission could let something like
for (i=DEFAULT_BLK_SZ-1;i>0;i--) {
pass without comment.
> Excuse me for not focusing on white-space or code-width issues > when reviewing code.
Please do so? You hopefully only need to do it once per submitter and we now have a tool which people can use to aid the process. It's hardly a large burden.
btw, I've searched my linux-kernel archives and netdev archives and the linux-crypto web archives and can find no sign of any submission or discussion of this patch. Am I looking in the wrong places?
| |