linux-kernel - Re: InfiniBand-ocrdma: Delete unnecessary variable initialisations in 11 functions

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: <56993833.2050809@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jan 2016 19:19:31 +0100
From:	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:	linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...n.nu>
Cc:	Devesh Sharma <devesh.sharma@...gotech.com>,
	Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
	Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>,
	Mitesh Ahuja <mitesh.ahuja@...gotech.com>,
	Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
	Selvin Xavier <selvin.xavier@...gotech.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: InfiniBand-ocrdma: Delete unnecessary variable initialisations in
 11 functions

> [Q.] What did you try to achieve by this patch?

I would appreciate a bit more fine-tuning in the affected source files.

> P.S. This is mailing list for developers

Do you try to express any further restrictions?

> and not for patch bots.

Would you like to explain such an information a bit more?

> We are glad to see patches that clean the code, but they need to
> be meaningful.

This is usual.

> Your automated patches add noise without any real benefit.

Are you expecting a kind of special proof?

> You was suggested to be ignored in MTD mailing list exactly
> for this type of patches,

Will the acceptance increase a bit for similar issues over time?

> did you learn anything from that experience?

Will another acknowledgement by Selvin Xavier influence any corresponding
software improvements?

How do you think about to add any further constructive comments
also for the other proposed update steps?

Regards,
Markus