linux-kernel - Re: staging: ks7010: Rename jump labels

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:	Mon, 25 Jul 2016 18:19:25 +0200
From:	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:	Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
Cc:	Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: staging: ks7010: Rename jump labels

>> Would you like to support the renaming of a label like "error_out1"
>> (in the function "ks7010_upload_firmware" for example)?
> 
> They should be renamed too. Anything using numbers instead of explicit

Interesting …


> Anything using numbers instead of explicit labels should be updated.

Would you dare to search for corresponding update candidates explicitly
by special semantic patch scripts?


> I included the reasons in the patch I just sent,
> hopefully the documentation is clearer now.

I am curious on how feedback will evolve for your suggestion
"CodingStyle: Clarify and complete chapter 7".
https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/7/25/207

How do you think about to show a shorter label like "free_bar"
(instead of "err_free_bar") as an example?


>> "Source code review around jump label usage"?
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/12/11/378
>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/2106190
> 
> Personally I see no value in such statistics.

Do they indicate any code smells eventually?


> Either labels are wrong (either wrong indentation or wrong name)
> and should be fixed, or they are correct and you should not touch them.

Do you find such changes worthwhile (without touching also any surrounding
source code)?

Regards,
Markus