On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 10:28:29PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Linus Torvalds > <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Linus Torvalds > > <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> NAK. This takes unintentionally insane code and turns it intentionally > >> insane. Any non-zero return is considered an error. > >> > >> The right fix is almost certainly to just return -EINVAL unconditionally. Correct. I'll fix this. > > > > Btw, this is why I hate compiler warning fix patch series. Even when > > they don't actually break the code (and sometimes they do that too), > > they can actually end up making the code worse. > > I generally agree, and this is also why I held up sending patches for the > -Wformat warnings until you brought those up. I also frequently send > patches for recently introduced warnings, which tend to have a better > chance of getting reviewed by the person that just introduced the code, > to catch this kind of mistake in my patches. > > I also regularly run into cases where I send a correct patch and find > that another broken patch has been applied the following day ;-) > > > The *intent* of that code was to return zero for the CAP_SYS_ADMIN. > > But the code has never done that in its lifetime and nobody ever > > noticed, so clearly the code shouldn't even have tried. > > Makes sense, yes. In this case, the review process has failed as > well, as one of the maintainers even gave an Ack on the wrong patch, > and then the patch got dropped without any feedback. I've done some digging and noticed that my -fixes pull request didn't get picked up last December. It's most likely because I initially made an address typo in the original request, and then followed it up with a direct email with the correct address. Sinclair -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
