linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] mfd: smsc-ece1099: Refactoring for smsc_i2c

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 12 Jan 2016 12:28:13 +0100
From:	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mfd: smsc-ece1099: Refactoring for smsc_i2c_probe()

>> Which topic would you prefer for my update suggestion instead?
> 
> This one.
> 
> "mfd: smsc-ece1099: Refactoring for smsc_i2c_probe()"
> 
> The function name and just describing the changes as "refactoring" do
> not describe the changes in a helpful way.

Would you find a subject like "mfd: smsc-ece1099: Better exception handling
in smsc_i2c_probe()" acceptable?


>>>> Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
>>
>> Do you really request that I should append this tag already to messages
>> for (my adjusted) commits you can not see so far?
> 
> Yes.

Interesting …


> The code looks fine,

Thanks for a bit of positive feedback.


> and if the commit log is still not up to scratch I just won't apply it. :)

Can we eventually agree on an useful message before I would dare another commit?

Will it be sufficient to delete the asterisks there?

Regards,
Markus