linux-kernel - Re: Further software improvements around Linux sequence API?

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: <47c7084e-21d8-4564-c237-84324dae17ab@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:   Mon, 24 Oct 2016 20:10:27 +0200
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org
Cc:     Andrea Gelmini <andrea.gelmini@...ma.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Leonid Yegoshin <Leonid.Yegoshin@...tec.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Matt Redfearn <matt.redfearn@...tec.com>,
        Paul Burton <paul.burton@...tec.com>,
        Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
        Ralf Bächle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
        Zubair Lutfullah Kakakhel <Zubair.Kakakhel@...tec.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Further software improvements around Linux sequence API?

> An experienced developer would be able to very easily spot that trying
> to optimize seq_printf() versus seq_puts() is barely going to be measurable.

Would you like to offer any incentives to use a more appropriate function
from this Linux programming interface for sequences?

> It's the sort of thing that a developer might fix while
> making other, more useful changes to a source file.

I get doubts when you expect that change possibilities with a higher
priority should and will almost always picked up before update candidates
with a lower impact.

> Well, please note that having a reputation of someone who insists on
> sending mostly junk patches (and like junk food, they may have some
> nutritive value; but that doesn't change the effect that the net
> benefit to person consuming them is marginal or negative), tends to
> give you a bad reputation, and may in fact be a hinderance towards
> your being able to attain "financial incentives".

I can not offer the “shiny gold nugget” or “pure diamond” so far directly
which is often preferred.

> If that is in fact your goal, I would gently suggest that you spend
> more time improving your skills, and learning more about higher-value
> ways you could contribute to the kernel, instead of spamming the
> kernel list with lots of low value patches.

* I could extend my source code search patterns in principle.
  How many developers and software reviewers struggle with results
  from existing code analysis tools?

* Will your interest occasionally grow for collateral software evolution?

> In the future if you are adding higher value improvements, and you want
> to do various cleanups, such as fixing up seq_printf -> seq_puts changes, sure.

Is this kind of feedback a contradiction at the moment when you seem to give
the impression that my software development reputation is so damaged in the
“junk food” sense that I could hardly achieve the software change mixture
which you would prefer?

Regards,
Markus