linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] staging: lustre: Less function calls in class_register

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: <5657573D.4080905@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:	Thu, 26 Nov 2015 20:02:21 +0100
From:	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
	Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
	lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] staging: lustre: Less function calls in
 class_register_type() after error detection

>> Do you try this update suggestion out without integrating the corresponding previous
>> update suggestion "Delete unnecessary checks before two function calls"
>> where I proposed to remove extra checks before a few calls of the function "kobject_put"
>> (which seems to matter for the patch hunk in the shown error message)?
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/11/5/276
>> https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg1013635.html
> 
> I guess so, I don't remember, I don't see any patches from you earlier
> in my "todo" mbox.

I am still waiting for further constructive feedback on a bunch
of my update suggestions which are derived from static source code analysis.

It can be the usual challenge to get a bit more attention for them.
Other software improvements will result in bigger effects than the source code
fine-tuning I propose, won't it?

I would like to acknowledge that changes like the following from this patch series
can still be applied together for the software "Linux next-20151126".
* 0001-staging-lustre-Delete-unnecessary-checks-before-two.patch
* 0003-staging-lustre-Less-function-calls-in-class_register.patch

>> Would you like to reject the first update step from this patch series
>> so that I need to adapt my approach to your software design decision?
> 
> I have no idea what you are talking about.  I have no recolection of
> previous patches or conversations about your patches.

* Dan Carpenter expressed his software design concerns around hidden sanity checks
  a few times.
  How do you think about to give the proposed changes another chance?

* Positive feedback is occasionally increasing by specific subsystem supporters
  and maintainers.
  How will our collaboration evolve further?

Do you want that I resend any mails/patches from my "waiting queue"?

Regards,
Markus
--
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/