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: <cdce8840-4c98-230a-f17b-308534f82947@vodafone.de>
Date:   Fri, 23 Sep 2016 13:17:05 +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 13:07 schrieb SF Markus Elfring:
>> It's just the names like "out" or "restart" perfectly explain why the labels exists.
> I have got an other impression.
>
>
>> So they fulfill this requirement from the coding style as far as I can see.
> Short identifiers might look more convenient in some cases because
> they are quicker to type.
>
>
>> So why do you want to change them?
> 1. I suggest to select identifiers also for jump labels which are more meaningful
>     and eventually unique for some function implementations.

I completely disagree. A longer identifier is not necessarily more 
meaningful than a shorter one.

The difference between calling a label "retry" and "lock_retry" is 
negligible, doesn't improve readability as far as I can see and is 
actually incorrect because the main meaning of the label is that we 
don't take the lock but rather that we restart the allocation operation.

Calling the label "unlock" instead of "out" is arguable a little better, 
but nothing I would call a major improvement either.

So that is a clear NAK to all those patches.

> 2. How do you think about to add a single space character before any label?

Bad as well. Why would anybody want to do this?

Christian.

>
> Regards,
> Markus