From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757911AbZGCPmW (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Jul 2009 11:42:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757283AbZGCPmP (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Jul 2009 11:42:15 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:57671 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757046AbZGCPmP (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Jul 2009 11:42:15 -0400 Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 17:42:09 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Alan Cox Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] vt: add an event interface Message-ID: <20090703154209.GA13580@elte.hu> References: <20090703091655.GB3902@elte.hu> <20090703104459.1d9d0bbf@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20090703095432.GC21141@elte.hu> <20090703110620.64fd1283@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20090703102234.GA32128@elte.hu> <20090703114431.37abd528@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20090703131727.GA3207@elte.hu> <20090703143746.0379b2ee@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20090703144754.GA13246@elte.hu> <20090703160230.093e422c@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090703160230.093e422c@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Alan Cox wrote: > > It's an argument you made on false premises. > > > > The thing is, my review wasnt about old code being moved around. It > > was about new code being introduced by you: > > Ingo, if you've nothing better to do than quote out of context and > be offensive, perhaps you should go fix voyager support or > something productive instead. > > The reply section you are quoting was about the code that was > moved from place to place. I stand by that comment - you don't > move code from place to place and reformat, rework it in one go. > It's lousy engineering. Your claim is simply false on its face. This commit: | commit a6614999e800cf3a134ce93ea46ef837e3c0e76e | Author: Alan Cox | Date: Fri Jan 2 13:46:50 2009 +0000 | | tty: Introduce some close helpers for ports did not 'move' the piece of code i quoted around: + if( tty->count == 1 && port->count != 1) { + printk(KERN_WARNING + "tty_port_close_start: tty->count = 1 port count = %d.\n", + port->count); + port->count = 1; + } + if (--port->count < 0) { + printk(KERN_WARNING "tty_port_close_start: count = %d\n", + port->count); + port->count = 0; + } it introduces it. This line: + if( tty->count == 1 && port->count != 1) { can be found nowhere else in the commit. You added it. In fact, if one looks closer, it turns out that: $ git log -p -1 a6614999e800cf3a134ce93ea46ef837e3c0e76e | grep -iE 'if.*tty->count' - if (tty->count == 1 && port->port.count != 1) { - if (tty->count == 1 && port->count != 1) - if ((tty->count == 1) && (info->port.count != 1)) { - if ((tty->count == 1) && (port->port.count != 1)) { - if (tty->count == 1 && port->count != 1) - if ((tty->count == 1) && (info->port.count != 1)) { - if ((tty->count == 1) && (info->port.count != 1)) { - if ((tty->count == 1) && (info->port.count != 1)) { + if( tty->count == 1 && port->count != 1) { that you consolidate 8 separate pieces of code, all of which got this basic detail right, and you _introduced_ the uncleanliness. Ingo