linux-kernel - Re: s390/debug: Fine-tuning for several function implementations

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: <2e09585e-1ffd-4301-13a5-2792da0078b2@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:   Mon, 5 Sep 2016 12:40:38 +0200
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        David Hildenbrand <dahi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: s390/debug: Fine-tuning for several function implementations

> While I agree that the old code in arch/s390/kernel/debug.c does not abide to
> the current coding style standards, I doubt there is much value in these patches.

How do you value the recommended compliance with the current Linux coding style convention?

Will my contribution be useful for further considerations?


> To be honest I got annoyed after the third patch

Thanks for your response.


> and stopped reading after the forth.

Does anybody in your company care for further improvements also in this software module?

Are there still opportunities to continue development in more constructive ways here?

Regards,
Markus