linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] net-PPP: Replacement of a printk() call by pr_warn() in mppe

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: <1417766255.2721.43.camel@perches.com>
Date:	Thu, 04 Dec 2014 23:57:35 -0800
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Cc:	Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, linux-ppp@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] net-PPP: Replacement of a printk() call by
 pr_warn() in mppe_rekey()

On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 08:18 +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> >>> It's generally nicer to replace embedded function names
> >>> with "%s: ", __func__
> >>>
> >>> 			pr_warn("%s: cipher_encrypt failed\n", __func__);
> >>
> >> Do you want that I send a third patch series for the fine-tuning of these parameters?
> > 
> > If you want.
> 
> Would "a committer" fix such a small source code adjustment also without a resend of
> a patch series?

Depends on the committer.  Some might, most wouldn't.

drivers/net/ppp doesn't have a specific maintainer.

The networking maintainer generally asks for resends
of patches that don't suit his taste, but lots of
non-perfect patches still get applied there.

It's a process, and it's not immediate.  Wait to see
if these get applied as-is.  If the embedded function
name use, which is trivial, bothers you, send another
patch later on that changes it.

> Does it make sense to express such implementation details in the Linux coding
> style documentation more explicitly (besides the fact that this update suggestion
> was also triggered by a warning from the script "checkpatch.pl").

Probably not.

Overly formalized coding style rules are perhaps
more of a barrier to entry than most want.


--
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/