Re: [PATCH, RESEND 03/14] drm/vmwgfx: avoid gcc-7 parentheses warning

[Sinclair Yeh]

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