linux-kernel - Re: md/raid1: Improve another size determination in setup

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:   Fri, 7 Oct 2016 17:27:05 +0200
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferroin7@...il.com>
Cc:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        "linux-raid@...r.kernel.org" <linux-raid@...r.kernel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Guoqing Jiang <gqjiang@...e.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
        Mike Christie <mchristi@...hat.com>,
        Neil Brown <neilb@...e.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>,
        Tomasz Majchrzak <tomasz.majchrzak@...el.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org" <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: md/raid1: Improve another size determination in setup_conf()

>> Why do various software developers bother about coding style specifications
>> at all then?
> Coding style is important,

Thanks that you "dare" to express also such an opinion.

> but patches that just fix coding style are a bad thing

When you find such a change opportunity so "bad", are there any circumstances
left over where you would dare to touch the corresponding source code line.

> because they break things like `git blame`

I follow your concern to some degree.

But can this argument evolve against a lot of changes generally?

> and run the risk of introducing new bugs

Did this really "happen" because of an update suggestion for this software module?

> without any net benefit to end users.

Can the proposed adjustment help to make a function like "setup_conf"
a bit more robust (together with related update steps) so that an improved
coding style compliance will hopefully influence the error probability
in positive ways?

> This goes double for code you don't actually work on regularly
> or don't completely understand.

How does such a kind of general feedback fit to the shown change
possibilities in this patch series?

Do you reject this update step?

Regards,
Markus