linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/26] constify local structures

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]

Date:   Mon, 12 Sep 2016 16:16:25 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Cc:     linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org, joe@...ches.com,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
        Tatyana Nikolova <tatyana.e.nikolova@...el.com>,
        Shiraz Saleem <shiraz.saleem@...el.com>,
        Mustafa Ismail <mustafa.ismail@...el.com>,
        Chien Tin Tung <chien.tin.tung@...el.com>,
        linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
        tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/26] constify local structures

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:54:07AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2016, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 03:05:42PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > Constify local structures.
> > >
> > > The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:
> > > (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)
> >
> > Just my two cents but:
> >
> > 1. You *can* use a static analysis too to find bugs or other issues.
> > 2. However, you should manually do the commits and proper commit
> >    messages to subsystems based on your findings. And I generally think
> >    that if one contributes code one should also at least smoke test changes
> >    somehow.
> >
> > I don't know if I'm alone with my opinion. I just think that one should
> > also do the analysis part and not blindly create and submit patches.
> 
> All of the patches are compile tested.  And the individual patches are

Compile-testing is not testing. If you are not able to test a commit,
you should explain why.

> submitted to the relevant maintainers.  The individual commit messages
> give a more detailed explanation of the strategy used to decide that the
> structure was constifiable.  It seemed redundant to put that in the cover
> letter, which will not be committed anyway.

I don't mean to be harsh but I do not care about your thought process
*that much* when I review a commit (sometimes it might make sense to
explain that but it depends on the context).

I mostly only care why a particular change makes sense for this
particular subsystem. The report given by a static analysis tool can
be a starting point for making a commit but it's not sufficient.
Based on the report you should look subsystems as individuals.

> julia

/Jarkko