Re: [PATCH] Change judgment len position

[Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>]

On Thu, 2018-10-25 at 03:20 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 06:16:31PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Thu, 2018-10-25 at 09:11 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > > CC Philip and LKP team.
> > > > 	Please try to make your first patch in drivers/staging
> > > > 	to get familiar with submitting patches to the kernel.
> > > > 	https://kernelnewbies.org/FirstKernelPatch
> > > > 
> > > > Maybe there's utility in creating a filtering and auto-reply
> > > > tool for first time patch submitters for all the vger mailing
> > > > lists using some combination of previously known submitters
> > > > and the 0-day robot to point those first time submitters of
> > > > defective patches to kernelnewbies and staging.
> > > 
> > > Yeah good idea. That feature can be broken into 2 parts:
> > > 
> > > - an email script, which could be added to Linux scripts/ dir 
> > > - maintain records for telling whether someone is first-time patch submitters
> > 
> > Maybe run checkpatch on those first-time submitter patches too.
> 
> OK, now I'm certain that you are trolling...

Nope, the process suggestions above are sincere.

> Joe, what really pisses me off is that it's actually at the expense of original
> poster (who had nothing to do with the CoCup)

CoCup?  No doubt pronounced cock-up.

>  *and* an invitation for a certain
> variety of kooks.  In probably vain hope of heading that off, here's the
> summary of what happened _before_ Joe started to stir the shit: 
> 
> 	* code in question is, indeed, (slightly) bogus in mainline.
> It reads as "reject negative values for length, truncate positive ones to 4",
> but in reality it's "treat everything outside of 0..4 as 4".  It's not broken
> per se, but it's certainly misleading.
> 	* one possible fix would be to drop the "reject negative values"
> completely, another - to move checking for negatives before the truncation.
> Patch tried to do the latter.

Umm, I suggested an appropriate mechanism to fix the patch
in this thread immediately after reading it.

> 	Code of Conduct is garbage, but neither Dave nor the author
> of this patch had anything to do with that mess.  If you want to make a point,
> do so without shit splatter hitting innocent bystanders - people tend to
> get very annoyed by that kind of thing, and with a damn good reason.

The Code of Conduct, if it exists at all, should apply
to all of the kernel.

And no, as I have previously posted, I don't agree with
it nor the method that was used to introduce it.

But it does exist.
Its splatter affects us all.