linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Clean up some extra unused arguments in fs/ubifs/

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: <4A607D9D.6090301@gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:33:17 +0300
From:	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
To:	subrata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC:	dedekind@...radead.org, Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...ia.com>,
	Sachin P Sant <sachinp@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Clean up some extra unused arguments in fs/ubifs/

Subrata Modak wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-07-17 at 10:28 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
>> On Fri, 2009-07-17 at 11:51 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> "const struct ubifs_info *c" exists as an extra argument for major
>>> function definitions under the "fs/ubifs/*" code. The reason why
>>> this extra argument exists is based on assumtion that there
>>> will be several key schemes. It is possible to add more than one,
>>> but we use only one. When there is practically no usage of them
>>> presently, they can be removed, and if needed can be added later.
>>>
>>> The following patch does that by removing:
>>> 1) "const struct ubifs_info *c" where it is not used/necessary,
>>> 2) remove xent_key_init_hash() function, as it is also not used,
>>> 3) remove data_key_init_flash() function, as it is also not used anywhere,
>> Fine with 2 and 3. Not fine with 1, unless it makes the code smaller
>> or more optimal.
> 
> Hmmm. I see. But, it took 95% of my effort.

But yesterday I said that I would not like to remove that argument
unless it makes the code larger. You answered you would check this.
And then you came up with this patches.

> Ok then, do you want me to
> send a separate patch for 2) & 3), or, you will automatically isolate
> them from the sent one.

I can isolate them myself, thanks for the patch.

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)
--
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/