linux-kernel - Re: 390/qeth: Delete an unnecessary variable initialisation in qeth_core_set

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: <568F62D0.9050806@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:	Fri, 8 Jan 2016 08:18:40 +0100
From:	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:	Ursula Braun <ubraun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: 390/qeth: Delete an unnecessary variable initialisation in
 qeth_core_set_online()

> As Heiko already answered, you could propose a lot of this kind of changes
> with just minor benefit. I do not want to push them in single patches.

Thanks for your clarification.


> Either there is a cleanup patch for explicit initialisation of
> local variables in the whole qeth driver,

Is there any more fine-tuning cooking in the background?


> or we take care about such minor changes, once we touch the code anyway

How often will this really happen?


> due to other reasons.

I am curious which ones will trigger further related software improvements.

Regards,
Markus