From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joe Perches Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 00:09:55 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/20] drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/skge.c: fix error return code Message-Id: <1349395795.2008.26.camel@joe-AO722> List-Id: References: <20121004.142335.1467206545795435493.davem@davemloft.net> <20121004.145419.1859367129463136197.davem@davemloft.net> In-Reply-To: <20121004.145419.1859367129463136197.davem@davemloft.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: David Miller Cc: peter.senna@gmail.com, shemminger@vyatta.com, mlindner@marvell.com, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2012-10-04 at 14:54 -0400, David Miller wrote: > From: Peter Senna Tschudin > > On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 8:23 PM, David Miller wrote: > >> We want to know the implications of the bug being fixed. > >> Does it potentially cause an OOPS? Bad reference counting and thus > >> potential leaks or early frees? > >> > >> You have to analyze the implications and ramifications of the bug > >> being fixed. We need that information. You are asking for deeper level analysis that may not be reasonably possible from the robotic patch fixed by a robotic piece of a bit of code correction via a static analysis. > >> It's just "bad error code, this is the script that fixed it, kthx, > >> bye" which is pretty much useless for anaylsis. Which may be all but impossible but for the handful of folks that know all the gory/intimate details of the original bit of code. > What does it potentially cause the caller to do? Will it potentially > treat an error as a success and as a result register an object > illegally? > > Real analysis please. The text you provided above is basically still > robotic and could be used to describe any error code return fix. Right, it's useful to attempt but may be infeasible in practice.