linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: dgap: re-arrange functions for removing forward declarations.

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <54469F4C.9070703@compro.net>
Date:	Tue, 21 Oct 2014 14:00:44 -0400
From:	Mark Hounschell <markh@...pro.net>
To:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
CC:	devel <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
	Lidza Louina <lidza.louina@...il.com>,
	DaeSeok Youn <daeseok.youn@...il.com>,
	driverdev-devel@...uxdriverproject.org,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: dgap: re-arrange functions for removing forward
 declarations.

On 10/14/2014 08:01 AM, Mark Hounschell wrote:
> On 10/13/2014 10:04 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 07:56:38AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2014-10-13 at 17:01 +0900, DaeSeok Youn wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> 2014-10-13 12:25 GMT+09:00 Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>:
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:34:25AM +0900, Daeseok Youn wrote:
>>>>>> Re-arrange the functions for removing forward declarations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Daeseok Youn <daeseok.youn@...il.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> This patch has too many changes for re-arranging the functions.
>>>>>> So I wonder that I should break this up into smaller patches.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are the .o files identical before and after this patch?  If so, it's
>>>>> fine.
>>>> Ok. I will check for that.
>>>
>>> The .o files shouldn't be identical after function reordering.
>>
>> Hm, they might be the same size, but I can see how on some
>> architectures (like ppc) how that would not be the case, you are right.
>>
>> Isn't there an "objdiff" program or something like that which might help
>> in validating that nothing "changed" in the source for type of patch
>> that just moves functions around in a file.
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>
> Greg,
>
> Would just testing the thing be of any help?
>
> Regards
> Mark

I don't know what is going on with this patch, but for what it's worth, 
I have applied this patch and my testing still shows everything OK.

Tested-by: Mark Hounschell <markh@...pro.net>

Regards
Mark

--
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/