linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] ide-cd: cleanup cdrom_decode

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]

Message-ID: <9ea470500904030703k9285e0eye5487f825df77e6@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 3 Apr 2009 16:03:08 +0200
From:	Borislav Petkov <petkovbb@...glemail.com>
To:	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ide-cd: cleanup cdrom_decode_status

On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
<bzolnier@...il.com> wrote:
> On Friday 03 April 2009, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 01:08:39AM +0200, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
>> > On Thursday 02 April 2009, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> > > - have (almost) equal handling of commands based solely on sense_key
>> >
>> > I'm having a VERY hard time trying to review this patch because at
>> > the same time that codepaths were merged if()s were replaced by switch()
>> > which in turn resulted in change of intendation... on top of that
>> > the patch description is very vague about this part of the changes...
>>
>> I completely and exactly understand what you are saying :), I thought so
>> too when I looked at the diffs yesterday. Well, if it's any consolation, the
>> patches've been tested so they seem to work :). Anyway, split version coming
>> up...
>
> The split version looks exactly the same except ide_cd_breathe() change
> when it comes to the main part.
>
> Did you send the wrong version by any chance?

No, but I can't split those changes anymore logically. The switch-case handles
the differentiation based on the sense_key and as such cannot be broken down
anymore without doing some weird stuff and possibly introducing more bugs and
breaking bisectability. Completely hypothetically: wouldn't a before-after
juxtaposition of the change make reviewing more easier, for example you
apply the patch on a different branch and compare the before and the after
version?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
Boris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/