Re: RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight

Al Viro <[email protected]> wrote:

> > A patch which is not "worthwhile" is also not "appropriate".  Mere
> > correctness in a mathematical sense is not enough as technical review
> > criterion.
> 
> Yes, but there's also such thing as "worthwhile removal".

Good point.  So the text should probably say "worthwhile change" rather
than "worthwhile addition."  I do believe that thinking about whether
the change as a whole is a desirable thing is an important part of the
review process.

jon
-
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/

---

• References:
  • Re: RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight
    • From: Al Viro <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: 2.6.23 regression: do_nanosleep will not return
• Next by Date: initramfs: coloring in userspace, "[PATCH 0/2] Colored kernel output (run2)"
• Previous by thread: Re: RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight
• Next by thread: Re: [ofa-general] [PATCH v3] iw_cxgb3: Support"iwarp-only"interfacesto avoid 4-tuple conflicts.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]