linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0829/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro

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: <733db41f-a76e-6aa2-96a5-b1e31f126df6@suse.com>
Date:	Tue, 2 Aug 2016 14:36:10 +0200
From:	Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
To:	Baole Ni <baolex.ni@...el.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0829/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro

On 02/08/16 13:50, Baole Ni wrote:
> I find that the developers often just specified the numeric value
> when calling a macro which is defined with a parameter for access permission.
> As we know, these numeric value for access permission have had the corresponding macro,
> and that using macro can improve the robustness and readability of the code,
> thus, I suggest replacing the numeric parameter with the macro.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chuansheng Liu <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Baole Ni <baolex.ni@...el.com>

This is the worst series of lkml spam I've ever received!

1. Make something like this a series in one thread, not 1285 single
   threads! Add a cover letter.
2. Don't write one patch per source file, one per subsystem is enough.
   Maybe even better: make a tree-wide patch using Coccinelle.
3. Use better subjects. I want to see the subsystem the patch is
   modifying.
4. Use _correct_ maintainers. WTF do I have to do with pcmcia?

Juergen