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: <568FA4F2.1000200@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:	Fri, 8 Jan 2016 13:00:50 +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()

>> Is there any more fine-tuning cooking in the background?
> Not yet;

I am a bit surprised by this information.


> qeth is an important driver for Linux on System z;

Good to know …


> there are lots of investigation ideas for improvements,
> which we will take care about according to their priorities.

Software development as usual …


> I regard your proposed fine-tuning code change as valid,

Thanks for a bit of positive feedback.


> but prioritize it as one with lowest benefit,

This is fine in principle.


> since it does not really make a difference once compiled.

Would you like to help in the determination if deletion of unnecessary variable
initialisations (besides in the implementation of the function "qeth_core_set_online")
will result in measurable effects?

Regards,
Markus