On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 12:23 PM Kalle Valo <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dan Carpenter <[email protected]> writes: > > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 11:56:53AM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote: > >> Dan Carpenter <[email protected]> writes: > >> > >> > It looks like we wanted to print a maximum of BSSList_rid.ssidLen bytes > >> > of the ssid, but we accidentally use "%*s" (width) instead of "%.*s" > >> > (precision) so if the ssid doesn't have a NUL terminator this could lead > >> > to an overflow. > >> > > >> > Fixes: e174961ca1a0 ("net: convert print_mac to %pM") > >> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]> > >> > --- > >> > Static analsysis. Not tested. > >> > >> IMHO this part (after "---" line) is important information and should be > >> part of commit log. I can fix that. > >> > > > > In my experience most maintainers disagree (with varying degrees of > > intensity). > > Heh, why would adding four words explaining the background of the patch > to a commit log would be a bad thing? :) Well, I guess I just view > things differently. >
By the time a maintainer applies a patch and requests to merge it upstream the patch should be tested. Right? So how would a comment "Not tested" make any sense in an upstream merged patch? Thanks, Amir.
