linux-kernel - Re: GPU-DRM-TTM: 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <05418fb1-ad66-aba3-bd8c-f6b684a83279@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:   Fri, 23 Sep 2016 12:20:54 +0200
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Christian König <deathsimple@...afone.de>
Cc:     dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@...il.com>,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: GPU-DRM-TTM: Fine-tuning for several function implementations

> Additional to that I don't really see the point in renaming some of the jump labels,

I am suggesting changes for another collateral software evolution.


> if you call it "restart" or "lock_restart" doesn't make much difference.

Do other identifiers fit better to a specification from the document "CodingStyle"
like the following?

"…
Choose label names which say what the goto does or why the goto exists.
…"


Does this wording need any more adjustments?

Regards,
Markus