linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] Input-at32psif: Fine-tuning for OOM handling in psif

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <7748f752-297e-fe5f-0517-eb65e2deec65@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:	Sun, 3 Jul 2016 10:01:47 +0200
From:	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	linux-input@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Input-at32psif: Fine-tuning for OOM handling in
 psif_probe()

>> A few update suggestions were taken into account
>> from static source code analysis.
>>
>> Markus Elfring (2):
>>   Return directly after a failed kzalloc()
>>   Remove two OOM messages
>>
>>  drivers/input/serio/at32psif.c | 10 +++-------
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> What possible rationale is there for including this "references" header?
> 566ABCD9.1060404@...rs.sourceforge.net

Do any more software developers dare to reconsider source code
also around a jump label like "out"?


> This message id is for your message:
> 	"Source code review around jump label usage"
> sent December 11, 2015!

Can such an association with a bit of background information
be occasionally useful for clarification of corresponding
implementation details?

Regards,
Markus