From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22572 invoked by alias); 21 Apr 2002 06:41:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 22561 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2002 06:41:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.112.240.27) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Apr 2002 06:41:25 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD5E93D1A; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 02:41:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3CC25F13.1040108@cygnus.com> Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 23:41:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020328 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "David S. Miller" Cc: thorpej@wasabisystems.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Sparc/Linux fixes part 1 References: <3CC22CA4.9060300@cygnus.com> <20020420.200957.17345631.davem@redhat.com> <20020420212425.E1627@dr-evil.shagadelic.org> <20020420.212348.61263564.davem@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00723.txt.bz2 > From: Jason R Thorpe > Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 21:24:25 -0700 > > On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 08:09:57PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > > > I produced a backlog of 12 patches, then Jason Thorpe posted his > > patch. You choose to review his change before any of the rest of > > mine. > > Err, I don't think you're being completely fair to Andrew, here. The > patch I posted to frame.c today was quite trivial, and the code it fixed > was pretty obviously broken, and thus the patch very easy to review. > > I posted patches of similar complexity. For example: > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-04/msg00675.html > The number of lines in a patch is not a good indicator of the amount of time required or the relative priority of a submitted change. The other patch didn't contain a single macro, it refered to one one-line function (which I know backwards), it fixes a core dump, and the patch itself contained all the relevant code in question. Given I only just changed the code myself, I'm also ``on the hook'' for any fallout. On the other hand, the above patch contains alloca, macros, and zero context (surounding code). It is changing code that currently works (just not efficiently) and, if wrong, will cause a stack buffer overrun. enjoy,Andrew