linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] clocksource/drivers/tango-xtal: Fix incorrect test

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 19 Apr 2016 19:21:20 +0200
From:	Mason <slash.tmp@...e.fr>
To:	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Sebastian Frias <sf84@...oste.net>,
	Mans Rullgard <mans@...sr.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clocksource/drivers/tango-xtal: Fix incorrect test

On 19/04/2016 16:59, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 04:05:19PM +0200, Mason wrote:
>> On 19/04/2016 15:13, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 02:15:15PM +0200, Mason wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: Marc Gonzalez <marc_gonzalez@...madesigns.com>
>>>>
>>>> Commit 0881841f7e78 changed "if (ret != 0)" to "if (!ret)"
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 0881841f7e78 ("Replace code by clocksource_mmio_init")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Marc Gonzalez <marc_gonzalez@...madesigns.com>
>>>> ---
>>>
>>> Please resend the patch with the fix only, without s/ret/err/
>>
>> As I wrote on IRC, I think it is misguided to consider variable
>> renaming as not part of the fix. A properly named variable helps
>> reviewers by communicating intent.
>>
>> Had I named the variable 'err' in the first place, would you have
>> introduced the bug by writing
>>
>>   if (!err) {
>>     pr_err("registration failed");
>>   }
>>
>> or would if (!err) have jumped out for an error path?
>> (Not a rhetorical question; if you say it would not have helped,
>> then I guess my mental workflow is different.)
> 
> Ok I won't argue for a stupid variable name.
> 
> The point is we are at v4.6-rc4 and even if the change is obvious, it is a 
> good practice to do a simple change:
> 
> -       if (!ret) {
> +       if (ret) {
> 
> Why ? Because maintainers have a lot of code to review, and removing the 
> noise as much as possible helps them to make their life easier especially 
> when they have to pay double attention for fixes at RC.
> 
> If the 'ret' name is a problem for you, just send another patch for v4.7 to 
> change the name.

I want to be sure I understand, please correct me if I'm wrong.

1) you have already committed the minimal fix above (changing only
the test, and keeping the original variable name) and this will be
pushed to linux-next for the upcoming v4.6-rc

2) if I want to change the variable name, I can send another patch,
to be pushed in the next merge window, for v4.7

Do you agree that 2) would be a (minor) improvement?
If not, I will not bother with the patch.

Regards.