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]

Date:   Fri, 23 Sep 2016 12:38:07 +0200
From:   Christian König <deathsimple@...afone.de>
To:     SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
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

Am 23.09.2016 um 12:20 schrieb SF Markus Elfring:
>> 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?

No, not really.

>
> "…
> Choose label names which say what the goto does or why the goto exists.
> …"
>
>
> Does this wording need any more adjustments?

Of hand I can't find any better wording.

It's just the names like "out" or "restart" perfectly explain why the 
labels exists. So they fulfill this requirement from the coding style as 
far as I can see.

So why do you want to change them?

Regards,
Christian.

>
> Regards,
> Markus