lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [May]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: net/sonic: Fix some resource leaks in error handling paths

On Mon, 11 May 2020, Markus Elfring wrote:

> > If you can't determine when the bug was introduced,
>
> I might be able to determine also this information.
>

This is tantamount to an admission of duplicity.

>
> > how can you criticise a patch for the lack of a Fixes tag?
>
> I dared to point two details out for the discussed patch.
>

You deliberately chose those two details. You appear to be oblivious to
your own motives.

>
> >> To which commit would you like to refer to for the proposed
> >> adjustment of the function “mac_sonic_platform_probe”?
> >
> > That was my question to you. We seem to be talking past each other.
>
> We come along different views for this patch review. Who is going to add
> a possible reference for this issue?
>

Other opinions are not relevant: I was trying to communicate with you.

>
> >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst?id=e99332e7b4cda6e60f5b5916cf9943a79dbef902#n460
>
> >
> > My preference is unimportant here.
>
> It is also relevant here because you added the tag “Reviewed-by”.
> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/comment/1433193/
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/5/8/1827
>

You have quoted my words out-of-context and twisted their meaning to suit
your purposes.

>
> > I presume that you mean to assert that Christophe's patch breaches the
> > style guide.
>
> I propose to take such a possibility into account.
>

This "possibility" was among the reasons why the patch was posted to a
mailing list by its author. That possibility is a given. If you claim this
possibility as your motivation, you are being foolish or dishonest.

>
> > However, 'sonic_probe1' is the name of a function.
>
> The discussed source file does not contain such an identifier.
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.7-rc5/source/drivers/net/ethernet/natsemi/macsonic.c#L486
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/net/ethernet/natsemi/macsonic.c?id=2ef96a5bb12be62ef75b5828c0aab838ebb29cb8#n486
>

That's what I told you in my previous email. You're welcome.

>
> > This is not some sequence of GW-BASIC labels referred to in the style
> > guide.
>
> I recommend to read the current section “7) Centralized exiting of
> functions” once more.
>

Again, you are proposing a bike shed of a different color.

>
> >> Can programming preferences evolve into the direction of “say what
> >> the goto does”?
> >
> > I could agree that macsonic.c has no function resembling "probe1", and
> > that portion of the patch could be improved.
>
> I find this feedback interesting.
>
>
> > Was that the opinion you were trying to express by way of rhetorical
> > questions? I can't tell.
>
> Some known factors triggered my suggestion to consider the use of the
> label “free_dma”.
>

If you cannot express or convey your "known factors" then they aren't
useful.

>
> > Is it possible for a reviewer to effectively criticise C by use of
> > English, when his C ability surpasses his English ability?
>
> We come along possibly usual communication challenges.
>

That looks like a machine translation. I can't make sense of it, sorry.

> Regards,
> Markus
>

Markus, if you were to write a patch to improve upon coding-style.rst, who
should review it?

If you are unable to write or review such a patch, how can you hope to
adjudicate compliance?
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-05-12 02:08    [W:2.647 / U:0.004 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site