From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755106AbdKARVP (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Nov 2017 13:21:15 -0400 Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]:38830 "EHLO out01.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751347AbdKARVM (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Nov 2017 13:21:12 -0400 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Joe Perches Cc: Nikolay Borisov , Christian Brauner , Linux Containers , tycho@tycho.ws, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra References: <20171024220441.10235-1-christian.brauner@ubuntu.com> <20171024220441.10235-2-christian.brauner@ubuntu.com> <871sliubhj.fsf_-_@xmission.com> <87k1zaswu6.fsf_-_@xmission.com> <143adb61-fb8e-fc1b-396b-b18836e68766@suse.com> <87a806ntn0.fsf@xmission.com> <1509555601.31043.44.camel@perches.com> Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2017 12:20:52 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1509555601.31043.44.camel@perches.com> (Joe Perches's message of "Wed, 01 Nov 2017 10:00:01 -0700") Message-ID: <87h8udj4p7.fsf@xmission.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-SPF: eid=1e9whF-0003B9-W0;;;mid=<87h8udj4p7.fsf@xmission.com>;;;hst=in01.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=174.19.78.123;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX194lB3Xn0xNpWJlCP0BwLNeo8dW3Cv+PT0= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 174.19.78.123 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.0 TVD_RCVD_IP Message was received from an IP address * 1.5 XMNoVowels Alpha-numberic number with no vowels * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: No description available. * 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% * [score: 0.4984] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa03 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] * 0.0 T_TooManySym_02 5+ unique symbols in subject * 0.0 T_TooManySym_01 4+ unique symbols in subject X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa03 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: *;Joe Perches X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Timing: total 5344 ms - load_scoreonly_sql: 0.09 (0.0%), signal_user_changed: 3.8 (0.1%), b_tie_ro: 2.3 (0.0%), parse: 1.31 (0.0%), extract_message_metadata: 27 (0.5%), get_uri_detail_list: 1.77 (0.0%), tests_pri_-1000: 9 (0.2%), tests_pri_-950: 2.3 (0.0%), tests_pri_-900: 1.94 (0.0%), tests_pri_-400: 26 (0.5%), check_bayes: 24 (0.5%), b_tokenize: 9 (0.2%), b_tok_get_all: 6 (0.1%), b_comp_prob: 3.6 (0.1%), b_tok_touch_all: 2.4 (0.0%), b_finish: 0.89 (0.0%), tests_pri_0: 299 (5.6%), check_dkim_signature: 1.09 (0.0%), check_dkim_adsp: 5 (0.1%), tests_pri_500: 4967 (93.0%), poll_dns_idle: 4936 (92.4%), rewrite_mail: 0.00 (0.0%) Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] userns: Don't read extents twice in m_start X-Spam-Flag: No X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 05 May 2016 13:38:54 -0600) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in01.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Joe Perches writes: > On Wed, 2017-11-01 at 06:08 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> I won't listen to checkpatch when it is wrong. > > Always a good idea. > > btw: what is checkpatch wrong about this time? Well the way I was hearing the conversation was that there was a patch that fixed a real bug, but it was wrong because checkpatch complained about it. So I don't even know if the warning is a problem. But blocking bug fixes because there is a warning certainly is. If someone wants to change coding style in practice so that every smp_rmb and every smp_wmb has detailed comments that everyone must include they need to follow the usual rule and update the entire kernel when making an interface change. As that did not happen I don't see any problems with incremental updates in the style the code is already in. Not that I will mind a patch that updates the code, but I am not going to hold up a perfectly good bug fix waiting for one either. Eric