Re: [PATCH 0254/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro

[Doug Ledford <dledford-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1702 bytes --]

On Tue, 2016-08-02 at 10:20 -0500, Steve Wise wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 09:12:54AM -0500, Steve Wise wrote:
> > > 
> > > Acked-by: Steve Wise <swise-7bPotxP6k4+P2YhJcF5u+vpXobYPEAuW@public.gmane.org>
> > > 
> > 
> > I have to ask, why did you ack all these? There's several things
> > wrong with
> > this patch series, but even the point of the patch is mistaken. It
> > makes
> > readable code much less readable. When you chmod a file, do you
> > type
> > 
> >   chmod 0444 file
> > 
> > or do you write
> > 
> >   chmod S_IRUSR|S_IRGRP|S_IROTH file
> > 
> > ?
> > 
> > Which of the above is easier to figure what is being changed?
> > 
> 
> I assumed this was some global "fix up".   

It is, but I'm not so sure I don't agree with Steve.  I'm not sure this
actually makes things better.  At a minimum, I would argue that Bart's
fix is mandatory before they would get my ack.  I would also request
that even though the patches are split up for review, they be squashed
on commit (whoever would want to tackle this monstrous pile of dubious
janitorial stuff).

> > 
> > Not to mention, because the subject is the same for all 1285
> > patches, and you
> > deleted the content of the patch in your ack, there's no way to
> > know what
> > exactly this ack is for (I haven't received the original patch yet
> > because
> > it's probably being ratelimited by some mail server).
> > 
> 
> I acked just the single patches that hit cxgb3/cxgb4.  But if this is
> really
> garbage, then ignore my ACKs...
> 
> Steve.
> 

-- 
Doug Ledford <dledford-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
              GPG KeyID: 0E572FDD

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]