On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 12:40:38PM +0200, Bodo Eggert <[email protected]> wrote:
> If there are checks, they should be there for a purpose,
emphasis here is on _should_
> and any sane reader will asume these checks to be nescensary.
That's a bad assumptions when you're deadling with drivers or software of
similar quality.
> If they are dead code, you
> can say that, but please don't flame Adrian for fixing obviously buggy code
> in a way that is sane and at least more correct than the original without
> using several days of his lifetime to analyze the whole driver. Instead, you
> could provide the correct fix.
The correct fix is to remove the check. And no, we don't have a rule that
someone must provide something better when trying to critize it.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
