linux-kernel - Re: iio/…: Use common error handling code

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:   Sun, 10 Dec 2017 17:43:34 +0100
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>
Subject: Re: iio/…: Use common error handling code

> Hi Markus, I've accepted the ones that I think made an improvement
> outweighing the inherent small costs of making any change.

Does such a kind of feedback mean that you reconsidered any places
where you expressed a rejection initially?

> We also need to avoid code constructs that are unusual in error handling
> such as backwards gotos.

Why would you like to exclude this approach if anything useful could be achieved
in the shown software design direction?

> Note however that most of the changes made so far are only minor improvements.

I agree that corresponding effects are small just because the discussed
source code adjustments affected specific function implementations.

> I am not saying I don't appreciate them,

Thanks.

> but rather than that they are of of low importance.

A lot of details are competing also for our software development attention.

Regards,
Markus