linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 8/9] net: ethernet: ti: cpts: fix overflow check period

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:   Wed, 14 Sep 2016 23:48:37 +0300
From:   Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>
To:     Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
CC:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mugunthan V N <mugunthanvnm@...com>,
        Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>, WingMan Kwok <w-kwok2@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] net: ethernet: ti: cpts: fix overflow check period

On 09/14/2016 11:43 PM, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:23:43PM +0300, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>> if yes then those changes are correct as from patch#7 point of
>> view, as from patch#8 because they are separate standalone changes.
>> In patch patch#7 it reasonable to ball out earlier, while in patch#8
>> it required to move forward a bit as I need to know maxsec.
>
> And what about the extra blank line?  AFAICT, placing the test later
> in patch #7 is correct logic and has the advantage of not distracting
> reviews with pointless churn!
>

NP. I'll change it.

-- 
regards,
-grygorii