linux-kernel - Re: rsi: Delete unnecessary variable initialisations in rsi_send_mgmt

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: <568BEDE8.4010203@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:	Tue, 5 Jan 2016 17:23:04 +0100
From:	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:	Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@...il.com>
Cc:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
	linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: rsi: Delete unnecessary variable initialisations in
 rsi_send_mgmt_pkt()

> Every time you send a set of patches,

I suggested some updates for Linux source files since October 2014.

> there are legitimate issues which people raise,

There was usual feedback.

> and every time they are discussed,

The discussion results were mixed between acceptance
and usual disagreement.

> you assert that your patches improve things

I guess that should be the default intention of every patch, shouldn't it?

> and seem to ignore the concerns people raise.

I hope not. - But I can imagine that you might understand some responses
from contributors in this way.
Are you waiting for another clarification on a specific issue?

> I've seen this same pattern of discussion here with these patches,
> with your patches to move labels into if statements, with the patches
> you sent late June last year, your patches to remove conditions before
> kfree() and friends, etc.

It seems that communication difficulties come partly from the fact
that I chose search patterns from static source code analysis so far
which belong to an error category that gets a lower priority.

> You need to change you attitude: just because you can see some benefit
> from your patches doesn't mean others do and it doesn't mean that
> they're willing to accept them.

I understand your advice.

Further update suggestions with higher importance might follow for various
software areas in the future.

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/