linux-kernel - Re: [POWERPC] bootwrapper: One check less in fsl_get

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]

Date:	Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:20:05 -0600
From:	Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>
To:	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
	"Benjamin Herrenschmidt" <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	<linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: [POWERPC] bootwrapper: One check less in fsl_get_immr() after
 error detection

On Mon, 2015-12-14 at 23:10 +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> From: Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 23:01:32 +0100
> 
> A status check was performed by the fsl_get_immr() function even if it
> was known already that a system setting did not fit to the expectations.
> 
> This implementation detail could be improved by an adjustment for
> a jump label according to the Linux coding style convention.

What is the actual problem you're trying to solve?  Cluttering the code to
micro-optimize an error path is not an improvement.

-Scott

--
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/