On Tue, 2018-06-05 at 10:39 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 10:30 AM Linus Torvalds > <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Honestly, this looks questionable to me. > > > > I'm not talking about the changes themselves - I can live with them. > > But the _rationale_ is pure and utter garbage, and dangerously so. > > Side note: I've merged it, and it's going through my build tests, so > it's really not that I hate the code. Thanks for merging. > > But I really find that kind of one-sided rationale that ignores > reality unacceptable. Yeah, there were few reasons why I decide to make that patch (OK, it seems I staked on not the best reason). Like Rafael said there is no need to use it here and code initially was without union aliasing be in place. > And I find it dangerous, because it *sounds* so "obviously correct" to > people who don't know any better. If you don't know that gcc > explicitly says that you should use unions to do type punning to avoid > aliasing issues, you might believe that union type punning is a bad > thing from that commit message. > > So it's dangerously misleading, because lots of people have a > dangerous reverence for paper over reality. I agree with you, because type punning via unions feels natural and that's why I even didn't notice when made a refactoring there several releases before. > In programming, "Appeal to Standards" should be considered a potential > logical fallacy. Standards have their place, but they definitely have > their caveats too. Yes, even outside of programming. -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Intel Finland Oy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
