linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0290/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Tue, 2 Aug 2016 09:51:54 -0500
From:	"Andrew F. Davis" <afd@...com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Baole Ni <baolex.ni@...el.com>
CC:	<dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>, <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>,
	<dledford@...hat.com>, <sean.hefty@...el.com>, <bp@...en8.de>,
	<linux-input@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<haibo.chen@...escale.com>, <andrey.gelman@...pulab.co.il>,
	<javier@....samsung.com>, <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0290/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro

On 08/02/2016 09:31 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 06:57:11PM +0800, Baole Ni wrote:
>> I find that the developers often just specified the numeric value
>> when calling a macro which is defined with a parameter for access permission.
>> As we know, these numeric value for access permission have had the corresponding macro,
>> and that using macro can improve the robustness and readability of the code,
>> thus, I suggest replacing the numeric parameter with the macro.
> 
> Please split these up and send them independently to the relevant
> maintainers with sensible subject lines - a single 1000+ patch series is
> far too large and you're CCing random people so it's hard to tell which
> patches are relevant (for example the batch I'm replying to here are for
> the input subsystem which I don't maintain so I'm not 100% sure why I'm
> being copied here).
> 
> With this sort of thing it's often best to send one series per directory
> or something similar.
> 

I would recommend just adding whatever script you used to find all of
these to patchcheck or coccinelle, then let people familiar with each
subsystem make and submit the fix-ups for each subsystem. You won't get
1000+ patches to your name, but the work still gets done and you avoid
bothering a lot of people.

(I got about several of these for files I've never touched :/)

Thanks,
Andrew