Re: [PATCH] return hidden bug

[Rene Herman]

On 10/22/2007 08:52 PM, Roel Kluin wrote:

> Ray Lee wrote:

> > Arguing intentions is very dangerous. I've written code like that
> > where the intention is to make it simple to turn a printk into a full
> > bug and back and forth during development. At the end of the day, the
> > fact remains that you're changing behavior.
> >
> > Let me turn this around. Do you have an alpha and have you tried out
> > your patch? If not, then I'd suggest turning it into a WARN_ON(1)
> > instead, as in this specific case you're risking turning what was a
> > working system into one that doesn't.
>
> No, I haven't and, I will change it, but it's included with my other
> changes. see the reply that I'll write shortly for.
> [PATCH retry] return hidden bug and unlock bugs.

Hugely trust inspiring isn't it -- the amount of eyes and comments you'll 
get even on trivial patches like this? This development model is working!

Now if only we'd sometimes get some for non trivial patches as well...

Rene.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/